Predicting Green Hotel Behavioral Intentions Using a ...

PREDICTING GREEN HOTEL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS USING A THEORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT AND SACRIFICE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

Dr. Imran Rahman Assistant Professor Department of Nutrition, Dietetics, & Hospitality Management College of Human Sciences Auburn University 328C Spidle Hall, Auburn, AL 36849-5605 Phone: +1(334)-844-4206 Fax: +1(334)-844-3279 Email: [email protected]

Dr. Dennis Reynolds Professor & Dean Barron Hilton Distinguished Chair Conrad N. Hilton College of Hotel and Restaurant Management University of Houston 229 C. N. Hilton Hotel & College, Houston, TX 77204 Phone: +1(713)-743-7896 Email: [email protected]

Accepted in International Journal of Hospitality Management Authors’ self-archived copy

Reference Rahman, I. & Reynolds, D. (in press). Predicting green hotel behavioral intentions using a theory of environmental commitment and sacrifice for the environment. International Journal of Hospitality Management

PREDICTING GREEN HOTEL BEHAVIORAL INTENTIONS USING A THEORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENT AND SACRIFICE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

INTRODUCTION ―Green consumption‖ refers to one of the many possible ways in which an individual can help reduce the negative impact of human activities on the natural environment (Robinot&Giannelloni, 2010).As early as 2012, a survey by Trip Advisor noted that the ―green‖ travel trend was gaining momentum as evidenced by 71% of survey respondentswhosaid they plan to make more eco-friendly choices in the next 12 months compared with 65% who did so in the past 12 months (Trip Advisor, 2012). A year later, as many as 79% of respondents indicated that implementing eco-friendly practices is important to their choice of lodging (Trip Advisor, 2013). These numbers make it apparent that green consumption in the lodgingindustry is on the rise. The industry has responded fairly well to the increased demand for green hotels. For instance, LEED registrations of lodging properties—certification by the U.S. Green Building Council under theLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design program—have increased significantly (U.S. Green Building Council, 2009). In 2007 almost four times as many hotels registered for LEED certification as in 2006, and in 2008 nearly as many new lodging properties registered as had in the previous eight years combined (U.S. Green Building Council, 2009). These numbers present an opportunity for better environmental management in the lodging industry.The industry has had its share of criticism on the grounds that a large discrepancy between attitude and action exists. Industry leaders acknowledge the importance of the 1

environment but do not implement environmentally friendly practices accordingly (Iwanowski&Rushmore, 1994; Anguera, Ayuso, &Fullana, 2000; Pryce, 2001). This is often due tocost, complexity, varied organizational structures, information asymmetry, low regulatory pressure, a need to share best practices, and knowledge deficiency regarding the benefits of going green (Anguera et al., 2000; Graci, 2008;Graci&Dodds, 2008; Henderson, 2007, Pryce, 2001). According to Rahman, Reynolds, and Svaren (2012) and Bohdanowicz (2005), one of the most important reasons for going green is the customer, often touted as the central stakeholder in driving hotels to be environmentally friendly. Indeed, a growing consumer base exists who are attracted by the ecological appeal of lodging facilities (Manaktola&Jauhari, 2007; Rahman, Park, & Chi, 2014; Chan & Wong, 2006; Han & Kim, 2010; Han, Hsu, Lee, &Sheu, 2011).Not only are consumers increasingly endorsing environment-friendly hotels, driving up the occupancy rates, but also are willing to pay more to stay at the green hotels, increasing the revenue (Lee, Hsu, Han,& Kim, 2010). With the current upsurge in green consumption, customers expect hotels to be green, and if a property fails to adopt environmentally responsible practices or communicates such adoption ineffectively, it may lose customers to greener competition (Butler, 2008). Thus, there is a clear need for hotel managers to understand the dynamics of consumer behavior if they want to implement an efficient environmental management program. Research also seems to be somewhat lagging behind consumer trends in addressing green consumer behavior in the lodging industry. According to Myung,McClaren, and Li (2012), a major gap in the environment-related literature pertaining to hospitality is a lack of studies seeking to understand the deeper aspects of consumer behavior. Additionally, studies incorporating theoretical perspectives in this research stream have been limited (Myung et al., 2012). One or

2

two major theories such as Ajzen‘s (1991) theory of planned behavior and Fishbein&Ajzen‘s (1975) theory of reasoned action have dominated the limited number of studies that embraced a theoretical lens (Myung et al., 2012). As such, there is a need to integrate novel theories or theoretical perspectives in this line of research. This study addresses these gaps by developing a comprehensive model of consumers‘ green hotel behavioral decisions. In particular, this study examines how consumers‘biospheric values, which emphasize the welfare of the environment and the biosphere as the most important principle driving behavioral intention, influence their willingness to sacrifice money and convenience for the sake of the environment and then connectsthe corresponding effects of willingness to sacrifice for the environment on green hotel visit intention, willingness to pay more to stay at a green hotel, and willingness to sacrifice to stay at a green hotel. Furthermore, this studylooks into how these behavioral intentions are formed in terms of the mediating role of willingness to sacrifice for the environment. A combinationof environmental values theory, interdependence theory, and environmental commitment model is applied as the underlying theoretical foundation of this study. LITERATURE REVIEW Understanding Green Hotels The Green Hotels Association (2014) defines green hotels as ―environmentally friendly properties whose managers are eager to institute programs that save water, save energy, and reduce solid waste – while saving money – to help protect our one and only earth‖ (para. 8).Thus, green hotels diligently practice environmental management which refers to the procedures, practices, and initiatives that a business instigates with the goal of plummeting, eradicating, and preferably thwarting detrimental environmental impacts that result from its

3

operations (Cooper, 1998). Examples of practices that green hotels implement include recycling waste, towel and linen reuse programs, low-flow faucets and showerheads, water-free urinals, refillable bathroom amenities, automatic climate control and light sensors, and natural ventilation. More often than not these practices entail consumers to sacrifice a certain degree of their comfort, convenience, and luxury (Butler, 2008; Clark, Kotchen, & Moore,2003). In many cases consumers are willing to make financial sacrifices for their environmental goals which represent a facet of environmentally significant behavior (Stern, 2000). Rationales and benefits such as cost savings, competitive advantage, ecological responsibility, legitimization, media recognition, risk minimization, employee organizational commitment,public scrutiny, enhanced investor relations, social benefit, local community support, marketing benefits, and improved operational efficiency, justify a hotel‘s decision to embrace environmental management (Gan, 2006; Juholin, 2004; Rahman et al., 2012; Newman & Breeden, 1992; Kirk, 1995; Bansal & Roth, 2000; Park, Kim, &McCleary, 2014). Central to all these reasons are the customers, who generally acknowledge the green hotels‘ efforts by patronizing them and paying more for them, sacrificing their desired level of luxury, convenience, and comfort in the process. According to Lee, Hsu, Han, & Kim (2010), consumers are motivated to endorse a green hotel primarily for the realization that their purchase decision plays a part in saving the planet and leaving a green environment future generations. Patronizing agreen hotel, can thus be necessitated from a feeling associated with nature, for example, loving nature and having an emotional fondness for nature (Kals, Schumacher, &Montada, 1999) such that consumers are willing to make a sacrifice for nature‘s sake. Thus willingness to sacrifice can be a general sacrifice for the environment and/or a more specific sacrifice associated with the

4

product such as settling for a product with inferior attributes.We will elaborate on these concepts in later sections. Theoretical Foundation Values theory Hoyer and MacInnis (2004) state that consumer values andbeliefs must be considered when examining the influencesthat affect purchasing decisions. Many scholars emphasize the importance of human values for explaining pro-environmental behaviors (e.g., Axelrod, 1994; Clark, Kotchen, & Moore, 2003; Stern, 2000). The Schwartz Theory of Human Values defines values as, ―desirable, trans-situational goals, varying in importance, that [serve] as guiding principles in people‘s lives‖ (Schwartz, 1992). Values are considered important because they may affect various beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors simultaneously (Rohan, 2000; Rokeach, 1973). Various studies have attempted to identify values that provide a basis for environmental attitudes and behavior (e.g., Karp, 1996; McCarty &Shrum, 1994; Stern, Dietz, Abel, Guagnano, &Kalof, 1999). Environmental values play a primary role inpro-environmental behavior: values affect people‘s beliefs,which then influence personal norms that lead topro-environmental behaviors (Reser&Bentrupperbaumer, 2005; Stern, 2000). Similarly, Ajzen‘s(1991) Theory of Planned Behavior posits that(environmental) beliefs shape attitudes towards behavior,which is then translated into behavioral intention. Stern (2000) argues that three types of values (i.e., value orientations) are relevant when explaining pro-environmental behaviors: egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric (see also, De Groot & Steg, 2007, 2008; Steg, Dreijerink, &Abrahamse, 2005; Stern, Dietz, &Guagnano, 1998). Egoistic values focus on maximizing individual outcomes based on self-interest, altruistic values reflect concern for the welfare of others, and biospheric values emphasize the welfare of the

5

environment and the biosphere as the most important principle driving behavioral intention. Most studies related to environmental behavior have not distinguished biosphericfrom altruistic value orientations (Bardi& Schwartz, 2003; Corraliza&Berenguer, 2000; McCarty &Shrum, 1994; Nordlund&Garvill, 2002; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Stern et al., 1998), but Stern and colleagues (Stern, 2000; Stern & Dietz, 1994; Stern, Dietz, &Kalof, 1993; Stern et al., 1998) have posited a basis for this distinction. We believe a biospheric value orientation explains the process of forming pro-environmental behavioral intentions better than an altruistic value orientation because of its emphasis on the environment. We are therefore primarily concerned with the role of biospheric values in the formation of pro-environmental behavioral intentions for the purpose of this study. Commitment model In order to explain the pro-environmental behavior-formation process, it is important that we explore another, seemingly more important,phenomenon—the person–environment relationship. Several models ofthe person–environment relationship are associated with environmentalbehaviors, including environmentalidentity (Clayton, 2003; Hinds & Sparks, 2008; Devine-Wright & Clayton, 2010), connectedness to nature (Mayer & Frantz, 2004; Mayer, Frantz, Bruehlman-Senecal, &Dolliver, 2009; Schultz, 2002; Perrin &Benassi, 2009), and commitment to the naturalenvironment (Davis, Green, & Reed, 2009; Davis, Le, & Coy, 2011; Coy, Farrell, Gilson, Davis & Le, 2013). We are primarily concerned with the latter approach in this study. Commitment to the environment represents a person–environment relationship based on psychological attachment and long-term orientation to the natural world (Davis et al., 2009). Commitment to the environment stems from interdependence theory,which examines the

6

structure of interpersonal relationships (Kelley & Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), and Rusbult‘s (1980, 1983) model of commitment, which explains how commitment is formed.Combining these theories with interdependence theory, we deduce that individuals are more likely to form commitments when they are dependent on some counterpart, which can be a person, a location, or the environment, to uniquely fulfill their needs (Davis et al., 2011).The investment model of commitment extends interdependence affirmation and argues that increasing the investment size in terms of personal identity, effort, or material possessions associated with a relationship positively affects commitment (Rusbult, 1980, 1983). A high degree of biospheric value orientation therefore acts as a form of personal identity for an individual. Thus, individuals exhibiting strong biospheric values or concern for the environment would ―naturally‖ have a high degree of commitment to the environment. Willingness to sacrifice for the environment Davis et al. (2009) provided initial evidence that commitment to the environment predicts individuals‘ past green behaviors as well as their future green behavioral intentions. By using an experimental manipulation of dependence on the natural world, they demonstrated that highly dependent participants are morelikelyto volunteeror learn about volunteer opportunities for a local river clean-up assignment. In subsequent studies, Davis et al. (2011) and Coy et al. (2013) showed that commitment to the environment predicts an individual‘s willingness to sacrifice for the environment. Similarly, in a sample of tourists, environmental concern was found to positively influence willingness to accept economic sacrifices for the environment (Hedlund, 2011). Stern et al. (1993), Stern and Dietz (1994), and Stern (2000) used the willingness to sacrifice construct; however their operationalization of the construct wasfrom an economic/financial stand point with the backdrop of environmental policy support and/or

7

environmental political action. For the purpose of this study, we embrace Van Lange, Agnew, and Harinck‘s (1997) conceptualization, which stems purely from commitment. In interdependent or highly committed relationships, people often ―go the extra mile‖ to maintain their relationships. Willingness to sacrifice involves―foregoing one‘s own immediate self-interests to promote the well-being of the partner or relationship‖ (Van Lange et al., 1997, p. 1331). Van Lange et al. (1997) suggested that strong commitment would influence an individual‘s willingness to sacrifice. Committed individuals are long-term or future-oriented and have a high need for their relationships. Hence, they are more likely to sacrifice to sustain their relationships. Moreover, in a committed relationship, a person and his or her partner might become linked to the degree that a departure from self-interest that benefitsthe partner might not be experienced as a departure from self-interest (Aron & Aron, 1986; Van Lange et al. 1997). In the context of the environment, individuals committed to the environment who have a strong biospheric value orientation will be more willing to make sacrifices for the environment. When faced with theusual ecological quandaries, willingness to sacrifice for the environment signifies the degree to which a person‘s actionsprioritize the welfare of the environment even at the expense of immediate self-interest, effort, or costs (Davis et al., 2011). According toIwata (2002),individuals exhibiting greater willingness to sacrifice for the environment demonstrated greater environmentally significant behavior. Similarly, Thøgersen (2000) found that willingness to sacrifice for the environment was positively related to the attention paid to an eco-labeled product, leading to a pro-environmental buying intention. As such, in the context of green hotels, it is expected that willingness to sacrifice for the environment will positively influence consumer visit intention and willingness to pay more for a green hotel. Willingness to sacrifice for green hotels

8

It is important to note that there are two types of willingness to sacrifice that we consider in this study. The first type is the general form of willingness to sacrifice for the environment that we have already discussed in details in the last three paragraphs. We addressedthe second type, which is more product-specific, in the initial section of the literature review where we discuss green hotels. The product specific sacrifice can lead to a financial sacrifice such as paying more for an environmentally friendly hotel. It can also lead to a sacrifice in terms of convenience, quality, or the level of luxury offered by a hotel. For example, almost every environmentally friendly hotel these days employ some sort of towel or linen reuse program whereby, instead of washing the towels or linens every day, these programs wash them on an on-call basis. Although participation in such programs is often voluntary, it can cause inconvenience for the consumer. Similarly, the use of common environmentally friendly practices such as low-flow faucets, showerheads, and urinals can also create inconvenience for consumers. There is also the widely prevalent perception that green products are inferior to their nongreen counterparts (Bhate, 2002; Peattie, 2001), which can prevent consumers from buying such products. According to Ottman (1998),41 percent of consumers refrained from buyingenvironmental products because of their perceived lower quality. In green hotels, some practices might present an impression of compromised quality (Heung,Fei, & Hu, 2006; Kirk, 1995). In fact, Dagmar (1994) asserted that conservation practices such as using shampoo dispensers might be contrary to guest expectations of indulgence and comfort. In a relevant study, Han and Chan (2013) found that consumersassociated green hotels with lower comfort level, inconvenience, and high price premiums. Green hotels have in fact become almost synonymous with price premiums. A metaanalysis study involvinghedonic price premiumfound that guests could expect to pay a $9–$26 9

premium for a standard room in a green hotel (Kuminoff, Zhang, & Rudi, 2010). This means that at the same price level guests could actually stay at a better hotel that offers them superior quality, greater convenience, and perhaps more luxury. The point is that choosing a green hotel may involve several sacrifices that are specific to those hotels. These sacrifices take the form of inconvenience, lesser quality, less luxury, or a higher price. Consumers‘ general willingness to sacrifice for the environment is expected to have a strong influence on consumer visit intention and willingness to pay more. Additionally, the general willingness to sacrifice for the environment is expected to influence product-specific willingness to sacrifice.In summary, based on the our extensive discussion of the values theory, commitment model, interdependence theory, and the two forms of willingness to sacrifice, in the context of green hotels, we propose the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Having a biospheric value orientation influences willingness to sacrifice for the environment such that the stronger the biospheric value orientation the greater is the willingness to sacrifice for the environment. Hypothesis 2: Willingness to sacrifice for the environment influences visit intention such that the greater the willingness to sacrifice for the environment the stronger is the visit intention. Hypothesis 3: Willingness to sacrifice for the environment influences willingness to pay more for a green hotel such that the greater the willingness to sacrifice for the environment the greater is the willingness to pay more for a green hotel. Hypothesis 4: Willingness to sacrifice for the environment influences willingness to sacrifice for green hotels such that the greater is the willingness to sacrifice for the environment the greater is the willingness to sacrifice for green hotels. The mediating role of willingness to sacrifice for the environment 10

Consumers who endorse green products have high levels of environmental or ecological concern or biospheric values. The biospheric value orientation represents concern for plants and animals and hence can be referred to as a form of environmental concern (Schultz et al., 2005). As per our discussion of the theory of commitment to the environment, it is fair to contend that these ecologically concerned consumers feel strongly for the environment and have a highdegree of commitment to the environment. Davis et al. (2011) found that commitment to the environment mediated the effects of satisfaction with the environment and investments on general ecological behavior and willingness to sacrifice for the environment.Thus, consumers with a high degree of environmental commitment or biospheric values are generally willing to make sacrifices for the environment. This general willingness to sacrifice for the environment will influence consumers‘ more product-specific pro-environmental behavioral intentions as per our contention.Oreg and Katz-Gerro (2006)used a comprehensive sample of participants from 27 countriesto show that willingness to sacrifice for the environment mediated the relationship between environmental concern and certain pro-environmental behaviors such as recycling, refraining from driving, and environmental citizenship.We therefore expect that the general willingness to sacrifice for the environment mediates the relationship between consumers‘ bio-centric values and more productspecific environmental behavioral intentions:

Hypothesis 5: Willingness to sacrifice for the environment fully mediates the relationship between biospheric values and a) green hotel visit intention, b) willingness to pay a premium for a green hotel, and c) willingness to sacrifice for a green hotel. METHODOLOGY

11

The survey instrument was developed using Qualtrics. Except for intention to sacrifice for the environment, all the measures are drawn from related studies in the literature,and all were shown to be reasonably valid and reliable. Ten members of an academic community were asked to read the final questionnaire to examine their readability and to assure content validity.Content validity indicates the degree to which the elements of a research instrument are relevant to and representative of the targeted constructs for a particular assessment purpose (Haynes, Richard, &Kubany, 1995). These academics, consisting of graduate students and faculty members, were asked to assess the degree of representativeness of the items (clearly representative, somewhat representative, not representative) of the associated constructs. The items were measured using a seven-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = disagree somewhat; 4 = neutral, 5 = agree somewhat, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree). We targeted a sample size of 400 for this study. Amazon‘s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) was employed to collect data. MTurkis a relatively new website that contains the major elements required to conduct research: an integrated participant compensation system; a large participant pool; and a streamlined process of study design, participant recruitment, and data collection (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). It is essentially a crowd-sourcing platform in which tasks, known as hits, are allocated to a population of unidentified workers for completion in exchange for compensation.Buhrmester et al. (2011) compared the quality of data obtained through MTurk to other sources. They contend that the data obtained are at least as reliable as those obtained via traditional methods and that the participants are more demographically diverse than are standard Internet samples and typical samples of American college populations.

12

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to test our hypothesized model. SEM requires a larger sample size compared with other multivariate techniques because the sample provides a basis for estimating sampling errors, and SEM statistical algorithms are unreliable with small samples (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2009). According to Anderson andGerbing (1988), a sample size of 150 is large enough to obtain a solution for models with more than three indicators per factor. However, Stevens (1996) recommends a sample size of at least 400 to avoid model misspecification. In general, when deciding on a sample size, decisions must be made based on several factors, including multivariate normality, estimation technique, model complexity, amount of missing data, and the average error variance of the indicators (Hair et al., 2009). Taking all of these factors into account, this study aimed at obtaining 400 responses roughly based on the 10:1 ratio of respondents to items recommended by Hair et al. (2009). The biospheric value orientation measure was taken from de DeGroot and Steg (2007). De groot and Steg‘s measures of value orientations were based on a short version of Schwartz‘s value scale (1992) as conceived by Stern and colleagues (Stern et al., 1999). The value scale used by De Groot and Stern consisted of 13 value items,but we operationalisedonly the four items used to measure the biospheric value orientation for the purposes of this study. In line with Schwartz, respondents rated the importance of these value items ―as a guiding principle in their lives‖ on a nine-point scale. Willingness to sacrifice for the environment was measured using Davis and Coy‘s (2011) five-item scale. Intention to visit a green hotel was measured by threeitems used by Han, Hsu, &Sheu (2010). Teng, Wu, and Liu (2013) also used the same measure in a subsequent study. Intention to pay a premium for a green hotel was measured using three items taken from Lee, Hsu, Han, and Kim (2010). We did not find a pre-existing scale that measures intention to

13

sacrifice for green hotels. Three items were put together to measure this construct. The items include, ―I am willing to sacrifice quality by staying at a green hotel,‖ ―I am willing to sacrifice convenience by staying at a green hotel,‖ and ―I am willing to sacrifice luxury by staying at a green hotel.‖ Additionally, the survey instrument included demographic questions regarding participants‘ age, gender, sex, education, ethnicity, income, and location. Furthermore, we also asked participants about the approximate number of nights they stay in hotels per year. In the survey instrument, we provided a brief introduction to participants about the survey. We included the definition of green hotels we used in this study as part of the brief introduction, so that participants know and understand what green hotels are before they answer the questions. We employed SPSS and AMOS to analyze the data. First, the data set was examined for missing data, as a non-random missing data process can bias the statistical results (Hair et al., 2009). The listwise deletion method was employed as it had consistently been found to be more robust than other sophisticated methods (Allison, 2002). RESULTS The target response number using MTurk was 400. A commission of $ 0.45 per response was set. Only participants who live in the United States were allowed to complete the task. In addition, only participants with an acceptance rate of 97% and above were allowed to complete the task. It took about eight days to elicit 400 responses. We used two filler questions to screen the data. These questions were embedded in the survey to catch participants who were randomly filling out the survey without paying attention to the questions.Ten responses were deemed unacceptable because the participants filled out at least one of the filler questions incorrectly.

14

These participants most likely were not attentive enough and hence were not compensated. Additionally there were 15 cases containing missing values which were deleted using the listwise deletion technique. Furthermore, three cases representing unengaged responses with very low standard deviation across their responses were deleted. We did not find any unusual digressions with skewness, kurtosis, or outliers. Eventually 372 responses were finalized for further data analyses. Participants were between 18 and 73 years old with 35.92 years as the average,while 214 (57.5%) were female and 158 (42.5%) were male. Out of 373 responses received for ethnicity, 302 were White/Caucasian (81%), 24 (6.4%) were Asian, 22 (5.9%) were Black/African American, 15 (4%) were Hispanic/Latino, 7 (1.9%) were mixed, 2 (0.5%) were Native American/Alaskan, and 1 (0.3%) was of another ethnicity. Out of 374 responses received for highest education level completed, 129 (34.5%) had completed some college, 124 (33.2%) had earned a four-year college degree, 43 (11.5%) had completed high school/GED, 34 (9.1%) had earned an associate degree, 27 (7.2%) had earned a master‘s degree, 10 (2.7%) had earned a doctoral degree, and 7 (1.9%) had not completed high school. Regarding income, 350 participants reported annual income ranging from $1,000 to $ 200,000 with $38,438 the average. The study sample represented every state except for Montana, Vermont, Wyoming, and New Mexico. Lastly, 373 participants responded to the question about the number of nights they spend in hotels per year. Responses ranged from 0 to 100, with 6.75 nights as the average. All our constructs demonstrated excellent reliability. Reliability is an indicator of convergent validity, and the coefficient alpha is a commonly used estimate (Hair et al., 2009). A reliability value above 0.70 suggests that all the measures consistently represent the same latent construct. The biospheric value orientation had a Cronbach‘s alpha value of 0.938. Willingness

15

to sacrifice for the environment exhibited a strong alpha value of 0.944. Our three dependent variables—intention to sacrifice for green hotels, intention to visit a green hotel, and intention to pay a premium for a green hotel—demonstrated high Cronbach‘s alpha values of 0.924, 0.841, and 0.935 respectively. Therefore, all our constructs showed reliability values well above the cutoff point of 0.70 suggested by Nunnally (1978), which proved their robust convergent validity. Measurement model Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood estimation with the 372 cases was conducted to assess the underlying structure of the variables in the model. In particular, all measures were assessed for unidimensionality, reliability, and construct validity. The CFA results indicated that the model fits the data well (χ2 = 476.69, df = 125, p