Microsoft Word 2007 ichrie conference Proceedings Final-Final 06-06-07. doc

 
 
 
 
 

---

 
2007 Annual International CHRIE Conference & Exposition 
40
Table 1 
Results of multinomial regression in the data from Greece 
Logit Function 1
:
Comparing Category 1 (pay nothing) VS Category 2 (Pay 2% to 6%)
B 
Se 
Wald 
Sig 
Exp(B) 
AORERP
.166 
.372 
.199 
.569 
1.181 
AOPERP 
.102 .303 .112 .611 1.107 
AEERP 
.308 
.344 
.800 
.693 
1.410 
BORERP 
-.086 
.337 
.065 
.474 
.918 
BOPERP 
-.818 
.426 
3.689 
.192 
.441 
BEERP 
-.220 
.339 
.422 
.413 
.803 
Logit Function 2
:
Comparing Category 2 (Pay 2% to 6%) VS. Category 3 (Pay more than 6%)
AORERP
-.095 
.358 
.178 
.673 
.860 
AOPERP 
.831 .351 .042 .837 1.075 
AEERP 
.072 
.338 
.079 
.779 
.909 
BORERP 
-.373 
.431 
3.723 
.054 
2.297 
BOPERP 
-.151 
.453 
6.618 
.010 
.312 
BEERP 
-1.165 
.368 
1.298 
.255 
.658 
Table 2 
Result of logit function 1 comparing category 1 vs. category 3 by using data from the U.S. 
Logit Function 1
:
Comparing Category 1 (pay nothing) VS Category 3 (Pay more than 6%)
B 
Se 
Wald 
Sig 
Exp(B) 
AEEPR 
-.035 
.332 
.011 
.917 
.922 
AORERP 
-.081 .357 .051 .821 .807 
AOPERP 
-.214 
.361 
.350 
.554 
.972 
BEERP 
-.234 
.391 
.358 
.549 
.791 
BOPERP
.987 
.409 
5.835 
.016 
2.684 
BORERP 
-.150 
.411 
.134 
.715 
.860 
 
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS 
 
This study suggests that the respondents in Greece were strongly influenced by ERP in a hotel when 
selecting the hotel, probably due to higher ERP concerns than the respondents in the U.S. 
H1 
testing the associations 
among awareness, attitude, involvement, and behavior intention on ERP was supported although there were different 
strengths and variations in these relations between two counties. Respondents in the U.S. showed stronger 
association among these variables than the respondents in Greece. 
In the data from the Greece, among H2a, H2b and H2c, testing the relationships between attitude on ERP 
and WTP, only 
H2c
- stating the relationship between consumers’ attitude toward external ERP and WTP - was 
strongly supported from the result showing that the different degree of consumer attitude toward external ERP was 
the predominant factor distinguishing category 1 from category 2. In the data from Greece, among the H3a, H3b, 
and H3c testing the relationships between behavior intention on ERP and WTP, only 
H3b – 
stating the relationship 
between consumers’ behavior intention on operational
 
ERP and WTP was strongly supported from the result 
indicating that consumers’ WTP 2% - 6% or more than 6% for ERP depended on the level of their behavior 
intention toward operational ERP.
On the other hand, in the data from the U.S., H2a, H2b, and H2c testing the relationships between attitude 
toward ERP and WTP were not supported. Among the H3a, H3b, & H3c testing relationships between behavior 
intention on ERP and WTP, only 
H3b
– stating the relationship between consumers’ high behavior intention on 
operational ERP and WTP was strongly supported from the result showing that the different degree of consumer 
behavior intention on operational ERP was the major determinant of the level of WTP. From the results, overall, 
although there are differences in the level of WTP when the consumers’ different levels of attitude and behavior 
intention on ERP are taken into consideration, consumers in both countries were more likely to patronize a hotel that 
provides ERP since behavior intention on operational ERP was found to be the significant factor affecting WTP in 
both countries. Accordingly, 
H4
– stating that due to cultural differences, the magnitude of the relationship between 

---