Assessing hotel decision-making of disabled guests: satisfaction correlation study between online comments’ credibility and perceived risk

  • Yan ZhangEmail author
  • Qiongjing Yang


Online comments have become an important tool for disabled guests because of lower physical movement requirements. In order to illustrate and evaluate disabled guests’ decision-making characteristics, this paper has used two steps for studying: (1) Data mining technology to collect e-comments from C-trip ( of 97 hotels in the cities of Beijing, Shanghai, Hangzhou and Guangzhou. Over 260,000 words were collected and analyzed by using ROSTcm software for this research. (2) Examined the relationship between the credibility and the perceived risk of disabled guests for their behavioral intentions. The result of this study has showed that: (1) Disabled guests pay more attention to the hotel barrier-free facilities, hotel barrier-free facilities, hotel personalized service, location accessibility, and the attitude and atmosphere of the hotel. (2) Disabled guests show positive attitude towards the hotel, and a neutral attitude accounting for 25.86% which indicates that the hotel industry still has much improving room especially with regards to disabled accessible guestrooms and accessibility. (3) Electronic Word-of-Mouth (eWOM) source credibility has a great influence on the overall perceived risk of the review of disabled guests because they are more likely for seeking internet comments for their lodging decision-making than other common guests. eWOM rational management can reduce the overall potential risk for disabled guests. (4) Hotels can enhance disabled guests’ decision-making by advanced eWOM management. The study illustrated that disabled guests who used eWOM could be better managed and reduce potential risks when making decisions. As a result, this study also found that with better management of eWOM, it could help to meet the potential market for the disabled guests and at the meanwhile attract more customers because of higher social reputation.


Disabled guests Hotel decision-making Comment analysis eWOM 



  1. 1.
    Ajzen, I., & Driver, B. L. (1991). Prediction of leisure participation from behavioral, normative, and control beliefs: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Leisure Sciences, 13(3), 185–204.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arndt, J. (1967). Role of Product-Related Conversations in the Diffusion of a New Product. Journal of Marketing Research, 4(3), 291.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bergier, J., Dąbrowski, D., & Zbikowski, J. (2011). Conditioning of participation of disabled males and females from eastern regions of Poland in tourism and recreation. Annals of Agricultural & Environmental Medicine Aaem, 18(2), 350.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bi, Y., Card, J. A., & Cole, S. T. (2007). Accessibility and attitudinal barriers encountered by Chinese travellers with physical disabilities. International Journal of Tourism Research, 9(3), 205–216.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bowman, R. G., Navissi, F., & Faff, R. (2003). Earnings management and abnormal returns: Evidence from the 1970–1972 price control regulations. Accounting & Finance, 43(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bunduchi, R. (2005). Business relationships in internet-based electronic markets: The role of goodwill trust and transaction costs. Information Systems Journal, 15(4), 321–341.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheung, C. M. K., Lee, M. K. O., & Rabjohn, N. (2008). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth. Internet Research, 18(3), 229–247.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheung, C. M. K., & Thadani, D. R. (2012). The impact of electronic word-of-mouth communication: A literature analysis and integrative model. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 461–470.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Clayton, S., Barr, B., Nylen, L., et al. (2012). Effectiveness of return-to-work interventions for disabled people: A systematic review of government initiatives focused on changing the behaviour of employers. The European Journal of Public Health, 22(3), 434–439.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Figueiredo, E., Eusébio, C., & Kastenholz, E. (2012). How diverse are disabled tourists? A pilot study on accessible leisure tourism experiences in Portugal. International Journal of Tourism Research, 14(6), 531–550.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Furmanek, M. (2014). Outbound tourism by the physically disabled inhabitants of Kraków: Current situation and future needs. Turyzm, 24(2), 7–14.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harrison Mcknight, D., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). The impact of initial consumer trust on intentions to transact with a web site: A trust building model. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 11(3), 297–323.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heitmann, M., Lehmann, D. R., & Herrmann, A. (2007). Choice goal attainment and decision and consumption satisfaction. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 234–250.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarvenpaa, S. L., & Todd, P. A. (1996). Consumer reactions to electronic shopping on the world wide web. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 1(2), 59–88.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keith, J. M., Bennetto, L., & Rogge, R. D. (2015). The relationship between contact and attitudes: Reducing prejudice toward individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47, 14–26.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim, M. J., Chung, N., & Lee, C. K. (2011). The effect of perceived trust on electronic commerce: Shopping online for tourism products and services in South Korea. Tourism Management, 32(2), 256–265.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, D. J., Ferrin, D. L., & Rao, H. R. (2008). A trust-based consumer decision-making model in electronic commerce: The role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 44(2), 544–564.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim, S. E., & Lehto, X. Y. (2012). The voice of tourists with mobility disabilities: Insights from online customer complaint websites. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 24(3), 451–476.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Larcker, F. D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee, Y. C. (2014). Impacts of decision-making biases on eWOM retrust and risk-reducing strategies. Computers in Human Behavior, 40(40), 101–110.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lee, Y., & Choi, K. (2002). Functional disability of older persons in long-term care facilities in Korea. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 34(2), 93–106.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Li, Y. M., Lin, C. H., & Lai, C. Y. (2010). Identifying influential reviewers for word-of-mouth marketing. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 9(4), 294–304.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Liu, S., Pan, Z., & Cheng, X. (2017). A novel fast fractal image compression method based on distance clustering in high dimensional sphere surface. Fractals, 25(04), 10.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liu, S., Pan, Z., Fu, W., et al. (2017). Fractal generation method based on asymptote family of generalized Mandelbrot set and its application. Journal of Nonlinear Sciences and Applications, 10(3), 1148–1161.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lord, J. E., Raja, D. S., & Blanck, P. (2015). Law and people with disabilities. In N. J. Smelser & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (pp. 497–503). Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mccole, P. (2002). The role of trust for electronic commerce in services. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 14(2), 81–87.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mcknight, D. H., & Kacmar, C. J. (2007). Factors and effects of information credibility. In International conference on electronic commerce: The wireless world of electronic commerce. DBLP.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mitchell, A. A., & Dacin, P. A. (1996). The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 219.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Morris, S., & Kazi, S. (2014). Emerging trends regarding accessible accommodation in Dubai luxury hotels. Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes, 6(4), 317–327.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Park, D. H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of on-line consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 11(4), 125–148.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction methods. Journal of Marketing, 35(1), 56–61.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Salb, J., Lindemann, U., Woodward, C., et al. (2015). Gait analysis in adults with intellectual disabilities living in a residential facility. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30(1), 205–210.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Schuff, D. (2012). What makes a helpful online review? A study of customer reviews on Social Science Electronic Publishing, 34(1), 185–200.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith, R. W. (1987). Leisure of disable tourists: Barriers to participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 14(3), 376–389.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Smith, D., Menon, S., & Sivakumar, K. (2010). Online peer and editorial recommendations, trust, and choice in virtual markets. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 19(3), 15–37.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Steffes, E. M., & Burgee, L. E. (2009). Social ties and online word of mouth. Internet Research, 19(1), 42–59.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Teng, D. B. S. (2004). The risk-based view of trust: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business and Psychology, 19(1), 85–116.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Todd, W. P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information Systems Research, 16(1), 85–102.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vaitsman, J., Lobato, L. D. V. C., Vaitsman, J., et al. (2017). Continuous Cash Benefit (BCP) for disabled individuals: Access barriers and intersectoral gaps. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 22(11), 3527–3536.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wan, Y., Ma, B., & Pan, Y. (2017). Opinion evolution of online consumer reviews in the e-commerce environment. Electronic Commerce Research, 18(2), 291–311.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Williams, R., Rattray, R., & Grimes, A. (2010). Meeting the on-line needs of disabled tourists: An assessment of UK-based hotel websites. International Journal of Tourism Research, 8(1), 59–73.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yau, K. S. M., Mckercher, B., & Packer, T. L. (2004). Traveling with a disability—More than an access issue. Annals of Tourism Research, 31(4), 946–960.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Tourism and Urban–Rural PlanningZhejiang Gongshang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations