Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior to green hotel choice: Testing the
effect of environmental friendly activities
Heesup Han a, *, Li-Tzang (Jane) Hsu b,1, Chwen Sheu c, 2
a
Department of Tourism Management, College of Business Administration, Dong-A University, Bumin-dong 2-ga, Seo-gu, Busan, South Korea 602-760
b
Department of Accounting, College of Business Administration, Kansas State University, 2E Calvin Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA
c
Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study proposed and tested Ajzens Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) model to explain the
Received 11 October 2008 formation of hotel customers intentions to visit a green hotel. The ndings showed the TPB model has
Accepted 24 March 2009 a good t to the data and better predictive power for intention than the Theory of a Reasoned Action
model. Based on theoretical support and suggested modication indices, a rened TPB model was
Keywords: developed. Consistent with the theory, the results of a structural equation analysis revealed that attitude,
Green hotel
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control positively affected intention to stay at a green hotel.
Theory of Planned Behavior
Further investigation indicated the paths between these predictors and intention did not statistically
Environmental friendly activities
Visit intention differ between customers who actively practice ecofriendly activities and those who are not often
engaged in environmentally conscious behaviors in their everyday lives. Implications and suggestions for
future research are discussed.
2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction operations have become increasingly proactive in following green

Over the last few decades, concerns related to the environment
have progressively escalated (Kalafatis, Pollard, East, & Tsogas,
1999; Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001). In the increas-
ingly environmentally conscious marketplace, consumers have
realized the impact of their purchasing behaviors, which are
strongly associated with environmental problems (Laroche et al.,
2001). Increasing numbers of customers who consider various
environmental issues are starting to seek and buy eco-friendly
products over alternatives, sometimes even paying more for such
products (Laroche et al., 2001). Consistent with this phenomenon,
in the lodging industry, customers demands for green establish-
ments have been gradually increasing. Many lodging customers,
being aware of the environmental damages (e.g., emissions
released into the air, water, and soil) and the wasting/harming of
environmental resources caused by hotels (e.g., excessive
consumption of non-durable goods, energy, and water), now look
for hotels that follow eco-friendly practices (APAT, 2002; Manaktola
& Jauhari, 2007). As such, marketers in various types of lodging
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 82 51 200 7427; fax: 82 51 201 4335.
E-mail addresses: heesup@donga.ac.kr (H. Han), lth8888@ksu.edu (L.-T.(Jane)
Hsu), csheu@ksu.edu (C. Sheu).
1
Tel.: 1 785 532 6275; fax: 1 785 532 5959.
2
Tel.: 1 785 532 4363; fax: 1 785 532 1339.
practices and developing environmental programs/initiatives
(Brown, 1996; Chan & Wong, 2006).
A green hotel is an environmental friendly lodging property that
institutes and follows ecologically sound programs/practices (e.g.,
water and energy savings, reduction of solid waste, and cost saving)
to help protect our planet (GHA, 2008). With the growing number of
customers seeking green operations, being a green hotel can provide
a basis for good marketing strategies in that its environmental
friendly practices may help position it differently in the competitive
arena (Manaktola & Jauhari, 2007). In addition to gaining
a competitive edge, differentiating themselves from similar, but
non-green operations, and fullling customers needs for environ-
mentally friendly hotels, green hotels eventually bring various
benets to the operation (e.g., reductions in energy consumption
and operational costs, enhancement of the companys image, coping
with government regulation, and positive public attention) (APAT,
2002; Enz & Siguaw, 1999; GHA, 2008; Penny, 2007). Thus, the green
hotel business is believed to be a growing niche in the current
competitive lodging industry (Manaktola & Jauhari, 2007).
Although, in the lodging industry, previous studies have exam-
ined environmental management/practices, green strategies related
to the environmental policies, and customers green preferences and
attitudes toward green practices, little research has focused on hotel
customers decision-making processes when selecting a green hotel,
while also taking social and non-volitional factors into account.

0261-5177/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2009.03.013
326 H. Han et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334
More specically, a thorough theoretical/empirical explanation
regarding the formation of hotel customers intentions to choose
a green hotel over the alternatives has been rare. Given this, the
investigation of the underlying factors that led to customers
intentions to visit a green hotel, while considering both social and
non-volitional components, will provide further insight into their
decision-making processes, thereby helping us better understand
their behaviors, which is essential for the development of green
marketing/service strategies. Therefore, the theoretical framework
for the current study derives from Ajzens (1985, 1991) Theory of
Planned Behavior (TPB) which has strong predictive utility for a wide
range of human behaviors. While the Theory of Reasoned Action
(TRA) solely focuses on volitional personal/social factors when
explaining individuals intention formation (Ajzen, 1985; Park,
2003), TPB, a more comprehensive version of the TRA, allows us to
examine the inuence of personal determinants and social
surroundings as well as non-volitional determinants on intention. In
particular, it could contribute to improving our prediction of
customers intention to choose a green hotel.
Overall, the current research aimed to test the applicability of
TPB in explaining hotel customers intention formation to stay at
a green hotel. The specic objectives of this study were: 1) to
identify salient belief items for each predictor construct of intention
to visit a green hotel (i.e., attitude, subjective norm, and perceived
behavioral control), 2) to compare TRA, TPB, and modied TPB
models, and 3) to test relationships among study variables. In the
TPB model, this study further investigated the effects of environ-
mentally friendly activities (EFAs) on the links between anteced-
ents of intention and intention as an additional analysis. Previous
research has indicated ecologically conscious customers who
frequently practice EFAs in their everyday lives are more likely to be
engaged in eco-friendly purchasing behaviors (Kalafatis et al., 1999;
Roberts, 1991; Shabecoff, 1993). Thus, the strength of the paths
across high and low EFA groups was compared. This was primarily
based on the idea that customers high in EFA as everyday habits
may have a different tendency in forming intention to select a green
hotel, as compared to low EFA customers. In the following section,
TRA, TPB, and the conceptual framework that supports the research
hypotheses are described. In the methodology section, procedures
to identify belief items, to develop measures, and to collect and
analyze data are illustrated. Finally, study ndings, implications,
and suggestions for future research are discussed in the results and
discussion sections.
2. Conceptual framework
2.1. Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA) and Theory of Planned
Behavior (TPB)
Central to TRA is the concept of intention, which Ajzen (1985)
described as an individuals motivation in his/her cognizant plan/
decision to exert an effort in performing a specic behavior.
According to TRA, most human behaviors are predictable based on
intention because such behaviors are volitional and under the
control of intention (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). That is, people, in
their decision processes, have a high degree of volitional control
and, thus, make reasoned choices among alternatives. Because of its
strong predictive power, TRA has been widely utilized as a model to
predict behavioral intentions and behaviors in the areas of
marketing and consumer behaviors (Lam & Hsu, 2004; Lee, 2005;
Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). According to TRA, behav-
ioral intention is a function of two factors; namely, attitude toward
performing the behavior and subjective norm (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). These two predictors of behavioral
intention are correspondingly associated with behavioral and
normative beliefs.
TPB is an extension of TRA (Ajzen, 1985, 1991). The major
difference between these two models is that TPB incorporates
an additional dimension of perceived behavioral control as the
determinant of behavioral intention. This dimension is corre-
spondingly related to control beliefs (CBs). TPB expands the
boundaries of TRA, a purely volitional control, by including
a belief factor that concerns the possession of requisite
resources and opportunities to perform a specic behavior
(Madden, Ellen, & Ajzen, 1992). The applicability of TRA has
been questioned because, in certain circumstances, a persons
behavior can also be determined by non-volitional factors (e.g.,
resources) (Ajzen, 1985; Park, 2003). In such situations, TRA is
not sufcient to predict an individuals intention/behavior. For
instance, although a hotel customer has positive attitude and
a perception of general social pressure toward patronizing green
hotels, the customer cannot stay at a green hotel if he/she
cannot afford the price, or if the company that pays for travel
expenses encourages him/her to visit a specic hotel, or if the
hotel is inconveniently located. TPB in this circumstance would
be more appropriate in predicting the hotel customers behav-
iors. It is clear that lodging customers decision-making may
include various non-volitional factors that can possibly diminish
the ability/opportunity to make an environmentally friendly
decision to select a green hotel. Therefore, TPB forms the
conceptual framework of this study in that it provides a well-
dened structure that allows thorough investigation of the
formation of customers green hotel purchasing intentions by
simultaneously considering volitional and non-volitional
factors.
2.2. Hypotheses development
This section discusses how behavioral intention is related to its
predictors (attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control), and how these antecedent variables are associated with
belief constructs. In addition, the study variables are explicated and
previous studies that support the proposed linkages are discussed.
2.2.1. Attitude
TPB assumes attitude toward a behavior, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control are three conceptually independent
determinants of behavioral intention. The rst important deter-
minant of behavioral intention is attitude, which can be described
as the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable
evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in question (Ajzen, 1991, p.
188). Attitude toward a behavior is believed to be a function of ones
salient beliefs (i.e., behavioral beliefs (BB)), which represent the
perceived consequences of the behavior and his/her evaluation of
the signicance of the consequences (i.e., outcome evaluation (OE))
(Eagry & Chailen, 1993). Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) described BB as
ones subjective probability that performing a behavior will lead to
certain consequences. For example, in our case, customers could
perceive staying at a green hotel as experiencing a healthy envi-
ronmentally friendly guestroom (or amenities), eating fresh and
healthy food, and being more socially responsible, etc. When
determining whether to perform a specic behavior, a person is
likely to assess the benets and the costs resulting from the
behavior (Cheng, Lam, & Hsu, 2006). An individual tends to possess
a favorable attitude when the outcomes are positively evaluated
and, thus, he/she is likely to engage in that specic behavior (Ajzen,
1991; Cheng et al., 2006; Lee, 2005). In other words, an individuals
positive attitude toward a certain behavior strengthens his/her
intention to perform the behavior (Ajzen, 1991).
 H. Han et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334
2.2.2. Subjective norm
In the model of TPB, subjective norm is postulated as a second
determinant of behavioral intention. Ajzen (1991) dened subjec-
tive norm as the perceived social pressure to perform or not to
perform the behavior (p. 188). In other words, subjective norm is
the perceived opinions of signicant others who are close/impor-
tant to an individual and who inuence his/her decision-making
(e.g., relatives, close friends, co-workers/colleagues, or business
partners) (Hee, 2000). Subjective norm is represented as a function
of a persons normative beliefs (NB) about what salient referents
think he/she should (or should not) do, and his/her motivation to
comply (MC) to those referents (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). Eagry and
Chailen (1993) described NBs as perceptions of signicant others
preferences about whether one should engage in a behavior (p.
171). In other words, it concerns the probability of whether
signicant referents would approve or disapprove the behavior. The
important role of subjective norm as a determinant of behavioral
intention is well documented in various contexts in marketing and
consumer behavior (e.g., Baker, Al-Gahtani, & Hubona, 2007; Cheng
et al., 2006; East, 2000; Laroche et al., 2001; Lee, 2005). Thus, in our
context, when signicant others think staying at a green hotel is
a proper behavior, ones perceived social pressure to visit a green
hotel would increase with his/her motivation to comply.
2.2.3. Perceived behavioral control
The third determinant of behavioral intention is perceived
behavioral control. Perceived behavioral control can be described
as the perceived ease or difculty of performing the behavior
(Ajzen, 1991, p. 122). In particular, perceived behavioral control
assesses the perception of how well one can control factors that
may facilitate/constrain the actions needed to deal with a specic
situation. Perceived behavioral control is determined to be
a function of control beliefs (CBs) that refer to ones perception of
the presence/absence of resources/opportunities required to
perform a specic behavior, and his/her assessment of the level of
importance of such resources/opportunities for the achievement
of outcomes (i.e., perceived power (PP)) (Ajzen & Madden, 1986;
Chang, 1998). A number of studies have demonstrated that peo-
ples intention/behavior is positively inuenced by their self-
condence in their ability to perform the behavior (e.g., Baker
et al., 2007; Cheng et al., 2006; Conner & Abraham, 2001; Taylor &
Todd, 1995). Findings in these studies imply that when an indi-
vidual holds little control over carrying out a certain behavior
because of the lack of availability of required resources (e.g., costs
or time), his/her behavioral intention will be lower in spite of the
fact that he/she has positive attitude/subjective norm concerning
the intended act.
2.2.4. Environmentally friendly activities (EFA)
Over the past several decades, environmentalism has been an
important issue because of the damage resulting from the use of
various disposable products, environmentally unfriendly produc-
tion processes, and environmental disasters (Easterling, Kenwor-
thy, & Nemzoff, 1996). People have become aware of the fragility of
our environment and the need for preservation of natural
resources; thus, in recent years, increasing numbers of individuals
with environmental concerns identify themselves as environ-
mentalists engaging in EFAs (Donaton & Fitzerald, 1992; Kalafatis
et al., 1999; Krause, 1993; Laroche et al., 2001; Manaktola & Jau-
hari, 2007). While people recognize the personal inconvenience of
EFA (e.g., recycling activity or environmental purchasing), indi-
viduals who perceive the importance of EFA concerning ecological
issues are actively engaged in those types of behaviors (Kalafatis
et al., 1999; Laroche et al., 2001; Shabecoff, 1993). These people
(green customers) are willing to change their buying behaviors in
327
a more ecologically favorable way (e.g., avoidance of disposable
products) and behave in an environmentally friendly fashion in
their everyday lives (e.g., recycling activity), thus sacricing
convenience, accepting lower levels of performance in eco-
friendly products, and even paying extra for the products (Kala-
fatis et al., 1999; Laroche et al., 2001; Manaktola & Jauhari, 2007).
While customers who do not engage in EFA tend to feel envi-
ronmental problems will resolve themselves, those who are
engaged as eco-friendly customers frequently believe our ecolog-
ical situation faces serious problems that need corrective action
and strongly feel they should do something for the protection of
the environment (Banerjee & McKeage, 1994; Webster, 1975).
Given their perceptions about the rigorousness of environmental
problems, such individuals EFA affects their purchasing behavior
(Laroche et al., 2001; Webster, 1975). Therefore, we could expect
that the formation of intention to visit a green hotel can differ
between customers often engaging in EFA and customers infre-
quently engaging in EFA. In particular, to gain a better under-
standing of the linkages, this study posits that EFA affects the
relationships between the suggested antecedent variables and
intention to visit a green hotel. The paths would be stronger for
high EFA customers than for low EFA customers because it would
indicate that, at similar levels of attitude, subjective norm, and
perceived behavioral control, customers who actively practice EFA
have a stronger intention to stay at a green hotel as compared to
low EFA customers.
2.2.5. Hypotheses
Based on the theoretical framework discussed above, the
following nine hypotheses are proposed:
H1 BBiOEi has a positive inuence on attitude (where BBi is the
belief that performing the behavior has consequence i; OEi is
the evaluation of consequence i).
H2 NBjMCj has a positive inuence on subjective norm (where NBj
is the belief that important referent j thinks he/she should
conduct the behavior; MCj is the motivation to comply with the
referent j).
H3 CBkPPk has a positive inuence on perceived behavioral control
(where CBk is ones perception of the presence/absence of
resource/opportunity k required to engage in the behavior; PPk
is his/her assessment of the signicance of resource/opportu-
nity k).
H4 Attitude has a positive inuence on visit intention.
H5 Subjective norm has a positive inuence on visit intention.
H6 Perceived behavioral control has a positive inuence on visit
intention.
H7 The impact of attitude on visit intention will be higher for the
high EFA group than the low EFA group.
H8 The impact of subjective norm on visit intention will be higher
for the high EFA group than the low EFA group.
H9 The impact of perceived behavioral control on visit intention
will be higher for the high EFA group than the low EFA group.
3. Methodology
3.1. Measures
The questionnaire used in this study was composed of three
sections: the rst included items designed to assess belief
constructs, the second consisted of predictor constructs (attitude,
subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) and visit
intention measures, and the third contained questions for demo-
graphic information.
328 H. Han et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334
3.1.1. Belief constructs
The measurement items for salient beliefs and referents were
developed from an elicitation study and a review of literature. Ajzen
and Fishbein (1980) indicated that new sets of beliefs and salient
referents should be elicited for each new context and population.
Thus, as an elicitation method, a focus group was used (Cheng et al.,
2006; Lam & Hsu, 2004; Lee, 2005). The group consisted of industry
professionals (e.g., hotel managers), hospitality academics (e.g.,
faculty members and students), and hotel customers. In addition to
discussing salient beliefs and referents, focus group participants also
completed an open-ended eliciting questionnaire designed to
obtain the new set of items for belief constructs. The initial ques-
tionnaire that contains 14 items for beliefs (BB, NB, and CB) and 14
items for evaluative components (OE, MC, and PP) was developed
based on this process and the literature review. The salient referents
were family/relatives, friends, and colleagues/co-workers. The
renement of the questionnaire was made through experts reviews.
The results of a subsequent pilot test with 40 hospitality academics
and lodging customers revealed the instrument has an adequate
level of reliability and question clarity. The survey measurement
items for each construct are presented in Appendix 1. In particular, 7
items with a 7-point Likert-type scale were used to measure BB
(1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree). Upon completion of the
likelihood ratings, the corresponding questions were used to assess
their evaluation of outcomes (e.g., Protecting our environment is
1 very unimportant, 7 very important). To measure NB (1 very
false, 7 very true), 3 items with 7-point Likert-type scale were
developed. Respondents were also asked to indicate their MC for
each referent (e.g., Generally speaking, how likely are you to do
what your family (or relatives) thinks you should do? 1 extremely
unlikely, 7 extremely likely). Finally, 4 items with 7-point Likert-
type scale were used to examine respondents CB (1 strongly
disagree, 7 strongly agree) and each items control power (e.g., The
price/cost of staying at a green hotel would inuence my decision for
hotel selection. 1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree). Based on
Azjens (1991) suggestion, all items for each belief were multipli-
catively combined with their evaluative components using the
expectancy-value approach to obtain an overall level of each belief
construct (SBBiOEi, SNBjMCj, and SCBkPPk).
3.1.2. Measures for other constructs
This study adopted existing validated items to assess predictor
constructs visit intention, and EFA (e.g., Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Lam
& Hsu, 2004; Laroche et al., 2001; Lee, 2005; Mathieson, 1991). The
wordings of the measures were slightly modied to be appropriate
for this study (see Appendix 1). While attitude was assessed by a 7-
point semantic differential scale, other constructs were all
measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 strongly disagree,
7 strongly agree). Multi-item scales were used to measure these
variables to adequately capture the domain of constructs (Churchill,
1979; Nunnally, 1978).
3.2. Data collection
The population for this study was general U.S. lodging
customers. A Web-based survey was used to collect data. Ques-
tionnaires were sent to 3000 randomly selected U.S. hotel
customers through an online market research companys survey
system. In the opening instructions of this survey, a thorough
description of a green hotel was given. A total of 428 usable
responses were received from participants, indicating a valid
response rate of 14.27%. Of the 428 respondents, 48.8% were male
and 51.2% were female. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 81
years, and their average age was 44.5 years. While 67.8% of the
respondents indicated their household income is less than $69,999,
32.2% reported that their household income is greater than
$70,000. A majority of the participants were graduates of higher
education (89.5%). Finally, most of the respondents (50.7%) indi-
cated they stay at a hotel at least 25 times a year.
3.3. Data analysis
The current study used SPSS and AMOS 5 to analyze the data.
Following Anderson and Gerbings (1988) two-step approach,
a measurement model was rst estimated using Conrmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA). After the assessment of the adequacy of the
measurement model, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was
utilized to nd the best-tting model and to test causal relation-
ships. SEM, multivariate technique, combines aspects of multiple
regression and factor analysis to assess a series of dependent
relationships simultaneously, which is not possible using other
multivariate techniques (e.g., multivariate analysis of variance,
multiple regression, discriminant analysis, factor analysis, etc.)
(Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998). This multivariate tech-
nique is particularly useful for modeling tests including several
independent/dependent variables and mediators/moderators (Hair
et al., 1998). Finally, differences in the links between antecedents of
visit intention and visit intention across high and low EFA groups
were examined by employing a test for metric invariances.
4. Results
4.1. Data screening and the measurement model
Prior to testing the measurement model, the collected data were
screened to avoid any violation of the assumptions of the general
linear model. After excluding six extreme multivariate outliers
among the cases, CFA using maximum likelihood estimation with
the remaining 422 cases was conducted to assess the underlying
structure of the variables in the model. Specically, all measures
were assessed for unidimensionality, reliability, and construct
validity. The CFA results indicated that the model ts the data well
(c2 1046.551, df 381, p < 0.001, RMSEA 0.065, CFI 0.949,
NFI 0.923). However, the standardized factor loading value for
one of the CB items did not meet the minimum criterion of 0.40, so
this item was eliminated to increase reliability and decrease
measurement error (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). After the
exclusion of this item, the remaining items were again subjected to
CFA. The results showed a satisfactory t to the data (c2 964.979,
df 353, p < 0.001, RMSEA 0.064, CFI 0.954, NFI 0.929) (see
Table 1). All items loaded above 0.60 on their assigned factors. All
items were signicantly associated with their specied constructs
(p < 0.01). These results provided evidence for the unidimension-
ality of each scale. Composite reliability of study constructs, indi-
cating the internal consistency of multiple indicators for each
construct, ranged from 0.641 to 0.961, exceeding the recommended
threshold suggested by Bagozzi and Yi (1988). Finally, Average
Variance Extracted (AVE) for the measures was calculated. All AVE
values, ranging from 0.578 to 0.909, exceeded the recommended
value of 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This conrmed convergent
validity. In addition, the AVE value for each construct was greater
than the squared correlation between constructs, indicating that
discriminant validity was achieved.
4.2. Structural model
4.2.1. Modeling comparison
Before examining the structural model, model comparisons
were conducted and Table 2 details those results. Two models (TRA
and TPB) were independently tested and compared using SEM.
 H. Han et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334 329

Table 1
Measure correlations, squared correlations, reliability coefcients, and AVE.

Correlations among latent constructs (squared)a

Measure BBiOEi NBjMCj CBkPPk AT SN PBC VI AVE

BBiOEi 1.000 0.782
NBjMCj 0.380 (0.144) 1.000 0.836
CBkPPk 0.221 (0.049) 0.020 (0.001) 1.00 0.603
AT 0.573 (0.328) 0.356 (0.127) 0.140 (0.020) 1.000 0.788
SN 0.429 (0.184) 0.718 (0.516) 0.018 (0.001) 0.487 (0.237) 1.000 0.909
PBC 0.409 (0.167) 0.204 (0.042) 0.234 (0.055) 0.256 (0.066) 0.229 (0.052) 1.000 0.578
VI 0.651 (0.423) 0.455 (0.207) 0.187 (0.035) 0.645 (0.416) 0.585 (0.342) 0.450 (0.203) 1.000 0.735

Mean 33.992 15.930 32.427 5.564 3.917 5.530 5.280

SD 12.131 10.706 9.984 1.235 1.649 1.187 1.332
Composite reliability 0.961 0.849 0.661 0.807 0.913 0.641 0.763

Note. BB behavioral beliefs; OE outcome evaluation; NB normative beliefs; MC motivation to comply; CB control beliefs; PP perceived power; AT attitude;
SN subjective norm; PBC perceived behavioral control; VI visit intention.
a
Correlation coefcients are estimates from AMOS 5. Model measurement t: c2 964.979 (df 353, p < 0.001), RMSEA 0.064, CFI 0.954, NFI 0.929.

Both TRA (c2 799.917, df 224, p < 0.001, c2/df 3.571,
RMSEA 0.078; CFI 0.952; NFI 0.935) and the proposed TPB
model (c2 1146.745, df 365, p < 0.001, c2/df 3.142,
RMSEA 0.071; CFI 0.941; NFI 0.916) showed an adequate t to
the data. This implies that both the TRA and TPB models could well
predict the customers intentions to visit a green hotel. Following
the satisfactory results of the model evaluations, two models were
compared for explanatory power. Findings indicated that the
proposed TPB model had better explanatory power for visit
intention (Adjusted R2 0.561) than the TRA model (Adjusted
R2 0.516). In addition, its t statistics were relatively superior (c2/
df 3.142, RMSEA 0.071) than the TRA model (c2/df 3.571,
RMSEA 0.078). Consistent with previous studies about TRA/TPB
modeling comparisons in different setting (e.g., Ajzen & Madden,
1986; Chang, 1998; Lee, 2005; Park, 2003), these results indicated
that including non-volitional/situational constraint factors and
perceived behavioral control contributes to better prediction of
customers intentions to visit a green hotel. For many years,
numerous researchers have attempted to rene the TRA/TPB
model, altering the relations between attitudinal and normative
components of the model (e.g., Chang, 1998; Oliver & Bearden,
1985; Ryu & Jang, 2006; Taylor & Todd, 1995; Vallerand, Deshaies,
Cuerrier, Pelletier, & Mongeau, 1992). Thus, as a next step, the TPB
model was compared to a revised model (Modied TPB1) by adding
paths from NBjMCj and subjective norm to attitude based on these
researchers suggestions. Compared with the TPB model, the
revised model showed superior explanatory power (Modied
TPB1: adjusted R2 for visit intention 0.591, adjusted R2 for
attitude 0.402 vs. original TPB: adjusted R2 for visit
intention 0.561, adjusted R2 for attitude 0.364) and relatively
better t (Modied TPB1: c2/df 3.043, RMSEA 0.070 vs. original
TPB: c2/df 3.142, RMSEA 0.071). Chi-square between the two
models statistically differed (Dc2 42.303, Ddf 2, p < 0.01).
However, the path from NBjMCj to attitude in modied TPB1 was
not signicant (b 0.07; t 1.066, p > 0.05). Thus, to construct
a parsimonious nal model, this revised model was re-estimated by
excluding the non-signicant path (Gruen, Summers, & Acito,
2000). As shown in Table 2, the nal model (Modied TPB2) had
good t statistics (c2 1105.666, df 364, p < 0.001, c2/df 3.038,
RMSEA 0.070; CFI 0.944; NFI 0.919). This nal model con-
taining the better explanatory power for visit intention (adjusted
R2 0.592) than other models remained for further analyses. The
nal model is presented in Fig. 1.
4.2.2. Hypothesis testing
Table 3 details the results of hypotheses testing. The estimates of
the standardized coefcients showed that the linkages between
BBiOEi and attitude (b 0.49; t 9.193, p < 0.01), between NBjMCj
and subjective norm (b 0.74; t 17.265, p < 0.01), and between
CBkPPk and perceived behavioral control (b 0.25; t 4.123,
p < 0.01) were all positive and signicant. Therefore, Hypotheses 1
3 were supported. The results also revealed there were positive
inuences of attitude (b 0.45; t 9.358, p < 0.01), subjective norm
(b 0.39; t 8.762, p < 0.01), and perceived behavioral control
(b 0.29; t 6.560, p < 0.01) on visit intention. Thus, Hypotheses 4
6 were supported. The support found for these hypotheses indicated
that customers intention to stay at a green hotel is positively asso-
ciated with their evaluation of the consequences of a green hotel
stay, perceived social pressure from important referents, and
perceived control over the barriers for a green hotel stay. In addition,
as can be seen in Fig. 1, the estimates of the standardized coefcients
and t-values showed that the direct effect of attitude on visit

Table 2
Explanatory power and t indices of models.

Fit Indices & R2 Recommended valuea TRA TPB Modied TPB1 Modied TPB2 (nal model)
2
c 799.917 1146.745 1104.442 1105.666
df 224 365 363 364
2
c /df 25 3.571 3.142 3.043 3.038
RMSEA 0.08 0.078 0.071 0.070 0.070
CFI 0.90 0.952 0.941 0.944 0.944
NFI 0.90 0.935 0.916 0.919 0.919

R2 (adjusted)
VI 0.516 0.561 0.591 0.592
AT 0.362 0.364 0.402 0.402
SN 0.546 0.546 0.544 0.544
PBC 0.061 0.061 0.061

Note1. AT attitude; SN subjective norms; PBC perceived behavioral control; VI visit intention.
a
Recommended values were based on Hair et al. (1998).
330 H. Han et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334

.49**
BBiOEi Attitude
.45**

.29**

.74** Subjective .39** Visit

NBjMCj
Norm Intention

.29**

.25** Perceived
CBkPPk Behavioral
Control

Fig. 1. Final model. **p < 0.01. Note. BB behavioral beliefs; OE outcome evaluation; NB normative beliefs; MC motivation to comply; CB control beliefs; PP perceived
power.

intention was greater than subjective norm and perceived behav-
ioral control. Further ndings indicated the positive indirect effect of
subjective norm on visit intention. More specically, subjective
norm positively affected visit intention through attitude (bSNAT
VI 0.13, t 5.48, p < 0.01). This result suggests that attitude has
a mediating role in the relationship between subjective norm and
visit intention. Finally, consistent with previous studies (e.g., Chang,
1998; Ryu & Jang, 2006), the added path between subjective norm
and attitude in the model modication process was positive
(b 0.29; t 6.766, p < 0.01), indicating the interdependence of
attitudinal and normative structures.
4.3. Empirical testing of group differences
4.3.1. Grouping
In order to test Hypotheses 79, the respondents were divided
into high and low groups based on their EFA scores. K-means
cluster analysis was employed in grouping. This analysis, which
allows the user to specify the number of clusters, is especially
useful when grouping cases that have similar characteristics and
when the sample size is large (200 or more cases) (Hair et al., 1998).
The cases were clustered into high (111 cases) and low (311 cases)
EFA groups.
4.3.2. Test for metric invariances
Prior to comparing the key paths between groups, measurement
invariance was tested to determine if the measurement models
across groups are invariant. Specically, a non-restricted model
using CFA was rst assessed, and this model was compared to the
full-metric invariance model that constrains factor loadings across
groups using the chi-square difference test (Yoo, 2002). As shown
in Table 4, two models were not statistically different (Dc2
(20) 33.00, p > 0.01). Thus, full-metric invariance was supported.
Both non-restricted model and full-metric invariance models
showed a satisfactory t.
As a next step, the baseline model was generated by running the
entire structural models that were rooted in the full-metric
invariance model. This model ts the data well (c2 1577.658,
df 750, p < 0.001, c2/df 2.104, RMSEA 0.051; CFI 0.935;
NFI 0.883). The baseline model was compared to a series of nested
models to examine invariance in the specic paths across groups.
While all paths in the baseline model were freely estimated, the
particular parameter of interest in the nested models was con-
strained to be equal between groups. The results showed that while
the impacts of attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral
control on visit intention in each group were all positive (p < 0.01),
the paths from attitude to visit intention (Dc2 (1) 0.429, p > 0.01),
SN to VI (Dc2 (1) 4.387, p > 0.01), and perceived behavioral control
to visit intention (Dc2 (1) 0.132, p > 0.01) were not statistically
different across high and low EFA groups (see Table 5). Accordingly,
Hypotheses 79 were not supported. This nding implies the
mechanisms underlying the attitude visit intention, subjective
norm visit intention, and perceived behavioral control visit
intention links do not differ according to the level of EFA.

Table 3
5. Discussion
Structural equation modeling results nal model (N 422).

Paths Coefcient t-Value Hypotheses The present study tested the appropriateness of TPB in
BBiOEi / AT 0.49** 9.193 H1: supported explaining hotel customers intention formation to choose a green
NBjMCj / SN 0.74** 17.265 H2: supported hotel. With the exception of the effect of EFA, our study objectives
CBkPPk / PBC 0.25** 4.123 H3: supported
were all achieved. Specically, salient belief items for each
SN / AT 0.29** 6.766 Added path
AT / VI 0.45** 9.358 H4: supported predictor construct, which are particularly appropriate in a green
SN / VI 0.39** 8.762 H5: supported hotel setting, were identied through a focus group and literature
PBC / VI 0.29** 6.560 H6: supported review. A series of modeling comparisons showed that the nal
model (modied TPB2) has a better explanatory power of visit
Goodness-of-t statistics: c2 1105.666, df 364, p < 0.001, c2/df 3.038,
intention than other models. The predictive constructs were vali-
RMSEA 0.070; CFI 0.944; NFI 0.919
dated as determinants of visit intention. In the modied TPB model,
Note. BB behavioral beliefs; OE outcome evaluation; NB normative beliefs; the rst six hypotheses were supported. However, test of the metric
MC motivation to comply; CB control beliefs; PP perceived power;
AT attitude; SN subjective norm; PBC perceived behavioral control; VI visit
invariances revealed that the strengths of the links between high
intention. and low EFA groups were not statistically different, thus the last
**p < 0.01. three hypotheses (H7H9) were not supported. Overall, the results
 H. Han et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334
Table 4
Measurement invariance.
Models
Measurement invariance for EFA groups Non-restricted model
Full-metric invariance of CFA model (L(X)Y IN*)a
Note. EFA environmental friendly activities.
* IN invariance.
a
Chi-square difference test: Dc2 (20) 33.00, p > 0.01 (insignicant), thus full-metric invariance is supported.
of this study veried our study constructs can be the major reasons
for purchasing a green hotel rather than a regular hotel. In partic-
ular, the current study ndings contribute to understanding hotel
customers willingness to purchase a green hotel in that this study
veried the roles of belief constructs (BBiOEi, NBjMCj, and CBkPPk)
and other antecedent variables particularly designed to be
adequate in a green hotel setting in explaining their environmental
friendly decision-making process.
This study provides both theoretical and managerial implica-
tions for comprehending the determinants of hotel customers
intentions to visit a green hotel. First, little was known about hotel
customers decision-making processes to visit a green hotel. To the
best of our knowledge, this study was the rst attempt to employ
TPB to examine inuencing factors on intention formation in
a green hotel context. Consistent with previous research about
comparison of the usefulness of two theories (TRA vs. TPB) in
different settings (e.g., Ajzen & Madden, 1986; Chang, 1998; Lee,
2005; Park, 2003), TPB was better than TRA in predicting hotel
customers intentions to visit a green hotel, suggesting the need for
the inclusion of non-volitional/situational constraint factors in
a green hotel context. The results showed that this TPB had a strong
predictive power for VI, indicating its applicability to the domain of
hotel customers environmentally conscious decision-making. That
is, the ndings provide a solid theoretical basis for the study of eco-
friendly hotel product purchasing behaviors. Additionally, it was
found that attitudinal and normative structures in TPB are not
independent as predicted because the rened model (the nal
model) with a causal path from subjective norm to attitude showed
a stronger explanatory power of intention, and the beta for this
added path was positive and signicant. This nding, which was
consistent with previous studies (e.g., Chang, 1998; Ryu & Jang,
2006; Vallerand et al., 1992), implied that formation of favorable/
unfavorable attitude toward staying at a green hotel is inuenced by
how ones important others (referents) consider the performance of
eco-friendly behavior. Thus, the effect of ones important others on
attitude should not be ignored for future research designs.
Marketers at a green hotel should actively nd ways to increase
environmental concerns (e.g., promoting green campaigns) that
potentially contribute to building their favorable attitude toward
a green consumption in the long-term.
Second, an examination of the estimated standardized
regression coefcients and t-values indicated the effects of ante-
cedent variables on VI were asymmetrical. In particular, the
ndings revealed that attitude toward a behavior had a greater
Table 5
Invariance tests for hypothesized paths.
Paths Fit of the model with the path
Baseline modela (freely estimated)
AT / VI c2 (750) 1577.658
SN / VI c2 (750) 1577.658
PBC / VI c2 (750) 1577.658
Note 1. AT attitude; SN subjective norm; PBC perceived behavioral control; VI visit intention.
Note 2. Other goodness-of-t indices for the baseline model: RMSEA 0.051; CFI 0.94; NFI 0.88.
a
Fit statistics: c2 1577.658, df 750, p < 0.001, c2/df 2.104, RMSEA 0.051; CFI 0.935; NFI 0.883.
331
c2 df RMSEA CFI NFI
1414.074 704 0.049 0.944 0.895
1447.068 724 0.049 0.943 0.893
level of inuence on visit intention than subjective norm and
perceived behavioral control. This implied that, to enhance hotel
customers intention to visit a green property, it could be effective
for green hotel managers to pay more attention to ways to
increase positive attitude. As the study results indicated, gener-
ating strong positive outcome beliefs by communicating with
their customers through various media would contribute to
enhancing attitude. By doing so, customers would gain stronger
beliefs that they can be more socially responsible for protecting
our environment, and they can dine/sleep in a healthy environ-
ment if they stay at a green hotel.
Third, the results of this study also veried the mediating role of
attitude. Attitude was found to partially mediate the effect of
subjective norm on visit intention. According to Fraizier, Tix, and
Barron (2004), a mediator explains why or how its predictor leads
to its outcome variable. In this regard, our nding implied that the
reason for individuals perceived social pressure from signicant
others is such that pressure from salient referents is likely to help
them gain a positive evaluation of the consequences of the behavior
to stay at a green hotel. Thus, for green hotel managers, enhancing
the level of attitude is critical to maximizing the inuence of
subjective norm on visit intention.
Fourth, this study extends previous research on TPB by inves-
tigating the inuence of EFA. This study proposed that the mech-
anisms underlying the links between predictor variables and
intention to visit a green hotel can differ across environmental
friendly behaviors in everyday life. Surprisingly, the ndings
indicated that EFA did not have a signicant inuence on the paths
between antecedents of visit intention and visit intention. In other
words, customers who frequently practice EFA did not show
a greater intention to stay at a green hotel as compared to low EFA
customers. This nding implied that such environmental friendly
behaviors as recycling and buying eco-friendly products as
everyday habits are not associated with decision-making when
purchasing an eco-friendly hotel product. This tendency is sup-
ported by Laroche et al. (2001) and Picket, Grove, and Kangun
(1993). They stated that a customer who frequently engages in
recycling activities would not be the same one who is willing to
pay more for purchases of an eco-friendly product. Managers in
a green hotel should be cautious of the fact that one environ-
mentally favorable/cautious action is not necessarily related to
another. Therefore, in the short-term, solely emphasizing the
importance of environmental protection and persuading eco-
friendly purchasing behaviors to hotel customers are not enough to
Test of invariance
Nested model (constrained to be equal) Chi-square difference test
c2 (751) 1578.087 Dc2 (1) 0.429, p > 0.01 (insignicant)
c2 (751) 1582.045 Dc2 (1) 4.387, p > 0.01 (insignicant)
c2 (751) 1577.790 Dc2 (1) 0.132, p > 0.01 (insignicant)
332 H. Han et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334
attract more customers to a green lodging property. Marketers in
a green hotel should educate customers about why it is healthy
and benecial to select a green hotel. For instance, marketers can
educate current/potential customers about the health environment
of a green hotel (e.g., fresh air with a natural scent, non-chemical-
base amenities, availability of organic food, environmental clean-
ing for laundry, or cotton towels and linens, etc.) as a customer
attraction strategy.
Finally, we found that among the survey respondents, 30.3%
indicated they are not sure whether they have ever stayed at
a green hotel. Our ndings implied that many hotel customers are
still not acquainted with hotels that have adapted green practices.
According to Kirk (1995), 54% of U.S. travelers are environmentally
minded and want to stay at a hotel whose operators show concern
about the environment. Consistent with this report, Foster,
Sampson, and Dunn (2000) indicated that practitioners in the
hospitality and tourism industry are under pressure to be eco-
friendly, and one of the main reasons is because of their customers
increasing demand. Their ndings implied that hotels may be able
to have a competitive advantage over similar non-green lodging
properties if they follow green practices. Thus, marketers in
a green hotel should advertise their active eco-friendly practices
(e.g., energy and water conservation, donation of useable items to
charity, hotel recycle bins, etc.) to current and potential customers
through media, a tool such as eco/green labeling, or videos
throughout their operation. These efforts will help environmen-
tally conscious customers make better informed purchasing
decisions.
The current study includes several limitations that offer
opportunities for future research. First, this study employed an
online survey to collect data from a broad range of general U.S.
lodging customers, which was desirable so as to enhance the
generalizability of the study ndings. However, to reduce extra-
neous variance and increase internal validity, future studies should
test the proposed model using a more homogeneous sample in
actual consumption situations as a replication of this study. Second,
this study was designed to examine general hotel customers
intention formation to visit a green hotel. Different groups of
customers may have different decision-making processes. For
example, hotel customers eco-friendly purchasing behaviors in the
economy segment of the hotel industry may not be consistent with
upscale/luxury hotel customers behaviors. Thus, to cross validate
the results of this study in each specic segment of hotels, it is
strongly recommended that the formation of visit intention in
various types of hotel settings be investigated in future research.
Third, the measurement of EFA in the current study was somewhat
narrow. It is recommended to more comprehensively assess EFA by
including more measurement items in the future research. Fourth,
previous studies indicated that inclusion of past behavior could not
signicantly improve predictive power because most of the effect of
this additional variable on intention is likely to be mediated by the
variables in TPB (Ajzen, 2001; Cheng, Lam, & Hsu, 2005). In addi-
tion, many survey participants in the present study were confused
as to whether the hotel they selected was a green property. Thus,
the present study focused on three major determinants of VI and
did not include past experience as predictor variable in TPB.
However, some researchers argued that TPB could be enhanced by
incorporating past behavior into the model (e.g., Bagozzi, 1981;
Ouellette & Wood, 1998). For future research, further examination
of the TPB model by including past behavior is needed to test the
models sufciency to predict behavioral intention and the signi-
cance of the inclusion of the variable in comparison with TPB. Fifth,
in this study, the time frame (e.g., within three months or within
a year) was not used when assessing customers intention to stay at
a green hotel. However, without a timeframe it can be relatively
easy for a survey participant to respond favorably to questions for
intention. In addition, dening the TACT elements (Target, Action,
Context, and Time) in this study can be somewhat arbitrary. Thus,
further consideration of this issue when assessing an individuals
intention is strongly needed in the future study. For instance, the
use of on my next hotel stay, instead of the time frame in the
questionnaire can be an effective way to deal with this issue.
Finally, the ndings of this study only provided a useful starting
point for more research on green hotel customer behaviors. For
example, several environmental studies on consumer behavior
have addressed the importance of environmental friendly attitude
and environmental concern in explaining eco-friendly consumer
behaviors (Laroche et al., 2001; Roberts, 1996). Thus, it can be an
interesting extension of this study to examine the roles of such eco-
friendly attitude and concern in hotel customers environmental
friendly decision-making process in the future research. As another
example, previous research ndings indicated that personal char-
acteristics (e.g., gender, age, education, and income) can be
important factors in explaining eco-friendly consumption (e.g.,
Laroche et al., 2001; McIntyre, Meloche, & Lewis, 1993; Roberts,
1996). It might be meaningful to test the proposed model by
considering the effects of personal characteristics for future
research.
Acknowledgment
This research was supported by research fund of Dong-A
University.
Appendix 1
Variable Measure
Behavioral beliefs Staying at a green hotel when traveling would enable me to
(BB) Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
BB1: protect our environment.
BB2: be more socially responsible.
BB3: experience a healthy environmental friendly
guestroom.
BB4: perform environmental friendly practices.
BB5: enjoy environmental friendly products and healthy
amenities.
BB6: eat fresh and healthy foods.
BB7: have reduced expenses.
Normative beliefs Very false (1)/Very true (7)
(NB) NB1: My family (or relatives) thinks I should stay at a green
hotel when traveling.
NB2: My friends think I should stay at a green hotel when
traveling.
NB3: My colleagues (or co-workers) think I should stay at
a green hotel when traveling.
Control beliefs (CB) Strongly disagree (1)/ Strongly agree (7)
CB1: Staying at a green hotel is expensive.
CB2: Finding a green hotel when traveling takes time and
effort.
CB3: Location of a green hotel needs to be convenient.
CB4: My company/school/others that pays for travel expenses
encourage me to stay at a certain hotel.
Attitude (AT) For me, staying at a green hotel when traveling is
AT1: Extremely bad (1)/Extremely good (7).
AT2: Extremely undesirable (1)/Extremely desirable (7).
AT3: Extremely unpleasant (1)/Extremely pleasant (7).
AT4: Extremely foolish (1)/Extremely wise (7).
AT5: Extremely unfavorable (1)/Extremely favorable (7).
AT6: Extremely unenjoyable (1)/Extremely enjoyable (7).
AT7: Extremely negative (1)/Extremely
positive (7).
 H. Han et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334
Appendix 1 (continued)
Variable Measure
Subjective norm Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
(SN) SN1: Most people who are important to me think I should
stay at a green hotel when traveling.
SN2: Most people who are important to me would want me
to stay at a green hotel when traveling.
SN3: People whose opinions I value would prefer that I stay
at a green hotel when traveling.
Perceived behav- Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
ioral control (PBC) PBC1: Whether or not I stay at a green hotel when traveling
is completely up to me.
PBC2: I am condent that if I want, I can stay at a green hotel
when traveling.
PBC3: I have resources, time, and opportunities to stay at
a green hotel when traveling.
Visit intention (VI) Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
VI1: I am willing to stay at a green hotel when traveling.
VI2: I plan to stay at a green hotel when traveling.
VI3: I will make an effort to stay at a green hotel when
traveling.
Environmental Strongly disagree (1)/Strongly agree (7)
friendly activities EFA1: I frequently use the blue or green box (bag) for
(EFA) recycling.
EFA2: When buying something wrapped, I often check
whether it is wrapped in recyclable material.
EFA3: I frequently buy disposable products (e.g., plastic
knives, forks, and spoons or styrofoam cups) (reverse coded).
References
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl,
& J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 1139).
Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 50(2), 179211.
Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitude. Annual Review of Psychology,
52(1), 2758.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: attitude,
intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 22, 453474.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice:
a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3),
411423.
APAT. (2002). Tourists accommodation EU eco-lable award scheme Final report.
Rome: Italian National Agency for the Protection of the Environment and for
Technical Services.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). An examination of the validity of two models of attitude.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16(3), 323359.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 7494.
Baker, E. W., Al-Gahtani, S. S., & Hubona, G. S. (2007). The effects of gender and
age on new technology implementation in a developing country: testing the
theory of planned behavior (TPB). Information Technology & People, 20(4),
352375.
Banerjee, B., & McKeage, K. (1994). How green is my value: exploring the rela-
tionship between environmentalism and materialism. In C. T. Allen, & D. R. John
(Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 147152). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Brown, M. (1996). Environmental policy in the hotel sector: Green strategy or Ouellette, J. A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: the
stratagem. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 8(3),
1823.
Chang, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: a comparison of the theory of
reasoned action and theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17,
18251834.
Chan, W., & Wong, K. (2006). Estimation of weight of solid waste: newspapers in
Hong Kong hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 30(2), 231245.
Cheng, S., Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2005). Testing the sufciency of the theory of
planned behavior: a case of customer dissatisfaction responses in restaurants.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24(4), 475492.
Cheng, S., Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2006). Negative word-of-mouth communication
intention: an application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Hospi-
tality & Tourism Research, 30(1), 95116.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 6473.
333
Conner, M., & Abraham, C. (2001). Conscientiousness and the theory of planned
behavior: towards a more complete model of the antecedents of intentions and
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 15471561.
Donaton, S., & Fitzerald, K. (1992). Polls show ecological concern is strong. Adver-
tising Age, 63, 3.
Eagry, A. H., & Chailen, S. (1993). Psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Easterling, D., Kenworthy, A., & Nemzoff, R. (1996). The greening of advertising:
a 25-year look at environmental advertising. Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice, 4(1), 2034.
East, R. (2000). Complaining as planned behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 17(12),
10771095.
Enz, C. A., & Siguaw, J. A. (October 1999). Best hotel environmental practices. Cornell
Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 7277.
Fishbein, M. A., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An intro-
duction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The applications of exploratory factor
analysis in applied psychology: a critical review and analysis. Personnel
Psychology, 39, 291314.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18, 3950.
Foster, S. T., Sampson, S. E., & Dunn, S. C. (2000). The impact of customer contact on
environmental initiatives for service rms. International Journal of Operations &
Production management, 20(2), 187203.
Fraizier, P. A., Tix, A. P., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Testing moderation and mediation
effects on counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51,
115134.
GHA. (2008). What are green hotels?. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from Green Hotel
Association (GHA) Web site. http://www.greenhotels.com/whatare.htm.
Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O., & Acito, F. (2000). Relationship marketing activities,
commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations. Journal of
Marketing, 64(3), 3449.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Hee, S. P. (2000). Relationships among attitudes and subjective norm: testing the
theory of reasoned action across cultures. Communication Studies, 51(2), 162175.
Kalafatis, S. P., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green marketing and
Ajzens theory of planned behavior: a cross-market examination. Journal of
Consumer Marketing, 16(5), 441460.
Kirk, D. (1995). Environmental management in hotels. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 7(6), 38.
Krause, D. (1993). Environmental consciousness: an empirical study. Journal of
Environment and Behavior, 25(1), 126142.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. H. C. (2004). Theory of planned behavior: potential travelers from
China. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 28(4), 463482.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are
willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 18(6), 503520.
Lee, M. J. (2005). Effects of attitude and destination image on association
members meeting participation intentions: development of meeting parti-
cipation model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Manhattan, KS: Kansas
State University.
McIntyre, R. P., Meloche, M. S., & Lewis, S. L. (1993). National culture as a macro tool
for environmental sensitivity segmentation. In D. W. Cravens, & P. R. Dickson
(Eds.), AMA Summer Educators Conference Proceedings, Vol. 4 (pp. 153159).
Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Madden, T., Ellen, P. S., & Ajzen, I. (1992). A comparison of the theory of planned
behavior and the theory of reasoned action. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18(2), 39.
Manaktola, K., & Jauhari, V. (2007). Exploring consumer attitude and behavior
towards green practices in the lodging industry in India. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19(5), 364377.
Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology
acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems
Research, 2(3), 173191.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L., & Bearden, W. O. (1985). Crossover effects in the theory of reasoned action:
a moderating inuence attempt. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 324340.
multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 124(1), 5474.
Park, J. (2003). Understanding consumer intention to shop online. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Columbia, MO: University of Missouri.
Penny, W. Y. K. (2007). The use of environmental management as a facilities
management tool in the Macao hotel sector. Facilities, 25, 286295.
Picket, G. M., Grove, S. J., & Kangun, N. (1993). An analysis of the conserving consumer:
a public policy perspective. In C. T. Allenet al. (Eds.), AMA winter educators confer-
ence proceedings (pp. 151153). Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association.
Roberts, J. A. (1991). The development of a prole of the socially responsible
consumer for the 1990s and its marketing management and public policy
implications. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska.
Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green consumers in the 1990s: prole and implications for
advertising. Journal of Business Research, 36, 217231.
334 H. Han et al. / Tourism Management 31 (2010) 325334
Ryu, K., & Jang, S. (2006). Intention to experience local cuisine in a travel destina-
tion: the modied theory of reasoned action. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, 30(4), 507516.
Shabecoff, P. (1993). A erce green re: The American environmental movement. New
York, NY: Hill and Wang Publishers.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned
action: a meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for
modications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15,
325343.
Taylor, S., & Todd, P. (1995). Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS
Quarterly, 19, 561568.
Vallerand, R. J., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J., Pelletier, L. G., & Mongeau, C. (1992). Ajzen
and Fishbeins theory of reasoned action as applied to moral behavior:
a conrmatory analysis. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 98109.
Webster, F. E. (1975). Determining the characteristics of the socially conscious
consumer. Journal of Consumer Research, 2(12), 188196.
Yoo, B. (2002). Cross-group comparisons: a cautionary note. Psychology &
Marketing, 19, 357368.