The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Review of
A critical review of moderation moderation
analysis in tourism and hospitality analysis in
tourism
research toward robust guidelines
S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh
Centre for Research and Innovation in Tourism (CRiT), Taylor’s University,
Subang Jaya, Malaysia Received 25 February 2021
Revised 15 June 2021
29 August 2021
Mingzhuo Wang 6 September 2021
Department of Economics and Management, Accepted 19 September 2021

Weifang University of Science and Technology, Weifang, China

Josip Mikulic
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Zagreb,
and Institute for Tourism, Zagreb, Croatia, and
Puvaneswaran Kunasekaran
Centre for Research and Innovation in Tourism (CRiT) and School of Hospitality,
Tourism, and Events, Taylor’s University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – This article aims to propose guidelines to develop moderation hypotheses, assess moderators
using the multigroup analysis and interaction effect approaches and interpret the results of moderation
analysis in tourism and hospitality research.
Design/methodology/approach – Through a review of 600 articles published in top tourism and
hospitality journals from the year 2016 to 2020, and reviewing the literature related to moderation analysis,
this study identifies key issues in different steps of moderation analysis and proposes robust guidelines to aid
future research.
Findings – The results of the systematic review uncovered some key issues in different steps of moderation
analysis, such as hypothesis development, moderation assessment and results interpretation. The findings
emphasized the typical methodological misconceptions and improper practices for moderation analysis.
Research limitations/implications – Moderation analysis is of great significance to the advancement
of theory, and its application has increased significantly in recent years. However, many studies appear to
have a limited understanding of moderation analysis and follow questionable practices regarding hypothesis
development, moderation assessment and results interpretation, thus leading to suspicious conclusions for
theory advancement. By highlighting these methodological issues, this article provides robust guidelines for
moderation analysis, which is of great theoretical and methodological significance to the academic research in
tourism and hospitality.
Originality/value – As one of the first studies to provide robust guidelines for moderation analysis, based
on a critical and systematic review of papers published in top-tier journals in tourism and hospitality and the
latest developments on moderation analysis in the wider literature, this article has important theoretical and
methodological significance for the academic research in tourism and hospitality as well as general social
science disciplines.
International Journal of
Keywords Interaction effect, Moderation analysis, Moderator, Multi-group analysis (MGA) Contemporary Hospitality
Management
Paper type Literature review © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-02-2021-0272
IJCHM 1. Introduction
Moderation refers to a situation in which the relationship between two related variables (or
constructs) is not constant but depends on the values of a third variable (or construct), which
is referred to as moderating variable or just moderator (Dawson, 2014; Hair et al., 2018a). A
moderator influences the strength or sign of the relationship between an antecedent and
outcome (Aguinis et al., 2016; Hair et al., 2017). Moderation is essential to understand the
mechanism of social science theories (Cohen et al., 2003; Hayes, 2018). Identifying a
moderator of an independent variable’s effect on a dependent variable helps to understand
better the mechanism underlying this effect under different circumstances (i.e. different
levels of the moderator). This may subsequently lead to a better understanding of the
baseline relationship and advancement of existing theoretical knowledge. The prevalence of
studies on moderating effects in a specific research field symbolizes this domain’s maturity
(Frazier et al., 2004; Memon et al., 2019).
In tourism and hospitality, the number of studies exploring and testing moderating
effects has virtually exploded in recent years, especially in 2019 and 2020 (see Figure 1).
Despite the growing popularity of moderation studies in tourism and hospitality, some
scholars are still confounded by some critical issues pertaining to:
 moderation hypothesis development;
 choice between multigroup analysis (MGA) and moderation analysis using the
interaction effect approach;
 data type transformation of the moderator variable;
 measurement invariance tests;
 mean-centering and standardization of the moderator variable;

Figure 1.
Number of
moderation studies in
tourism and
hospitality
  creation of the interaction term; and Review of
 testing and probing interaction effects. moderation
analysis in
To the best knowledge of the authors of this study, no study has so far conducted a
systematic and critical review of empirical studies using moderation analysis in the tourism tourism
and hospitality area and suggested guidelines for future research. Hence, this systematic
review investigates the practice of moderation analysis in the extant literature and guides
future studies by resolving the confusion that puzzles researchers when modeling
moderating effects.

2. Critical issues in moderation analysis

Several critical issues regarding moderation analysis will be discussed in the following
sections by reviewing the methodological literature. First, the fundamental role of theory in
moderation hypothesis development is discussed. Next, MGA in both covariance-based
structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) and partial least squares – structural equation
modeling (PLS-SEM) is introduced, followed by a discussion of the importance of
measurement invariance tests for valid assessment of moderating effects. Subsequently,
moderation analysis using the interaction effect approach is presented, and frequently
neglected issues regarding the creation of the interaction term are discussed in detail, i.e.
mean-centering and standardization of the moderator variable and testing and probing of
the interaction effect. Finally, the criteria for choosing between MGA and moderation
analysis using interaction effects are presented, accompanied by a discussion of the
rationale of data-type transformations of moderator variables.

2.1 Moderation hypothesis development

Theory is the basis for modeling a moderating effect in a conceptual framework. The
inclusion of a moderator should be justified through theoretical explanation rather than the
mere presence of statistically significant moderating effects (Andersson et al., 2020; Hair
et al., 2018a). Merely including a moderator without a theoretical foundation just to make the
model more complex and assuming that it could make a significant contribution “can be
likened to a shipwreck” (Memon et al., 2019, p. 5). In this vein, Andersson et al. (2020)
proposed a seven-step procedure for the conceptualization and hypothesis development of
moderating effects, which starts with the identification of relevant theories:
 identify and articulate the theory(ies) that are used to justify the direct and
moderating effect;
 justify the direct effect using the selected theory(ies);
 justify the choice of moderator variable (M) using the chosen theory(ies);
 explain M’s direct effect (if any) on the dependent variable (Y) to clarify how this
direct effect differs from the interaction effect;
 explain how the interaction changes the underlying mechanisms of the direct
relationship between X and Y;
 if a theoretical rationale exists for the direct effect of M on Y (as discussed in Step 4),
theoretically rule out the reverse interaction (i.e. X moderates the relationship
between M and Y); and
 when interpreting the results, return to theory(ies) and explain from a theoretical
perspective.
IJCHM 2.2 Multigroup analysis
MGA is preferable for moderation analysis when the moderator is categorical, or a
continuous moderator has been converted into a categorical variable (Hair et al., 2018a). The
data set/sample is divided into two or more groups based on the values of the categorical
moderator variable. The objective of MGA is to test whether there are significant differences
across individual groups (MacKinnon, 2011). Although researchers generally focus on a
moderator’s effect on all the model relationships when using MGA (Aguinis et al., 2016; Hair
et al., 2017), it should be noted that significance tests of moderating effects on individual
relationships can also be performed through MGA in many SEM packages (e.g. AMOS and
SmartPLS).
In CB-SEM, group model comparison is conducted by a significance test of Chi-square
difference (D x 2) between the totally free model (path estimates are computed individually
for each group) and the constrained model (path estimates are constrained to be equal across
groups). A significant increase in x 2 (i.e. model fit significantly worsens when the individual
path estimates are constrained to be identical) indicates that the path estimates are different
between groups, thus supporting the existence of moderating effects (Hair et al., 2018a).
In PLS-SEM, group comparisons can be performed by using either the parametric or
nonparametric approaches. The parametric approach (Keil et al., 2000) relies on
distributional assumptions, which, however, conflicts with PLS-SEM’s nonparametric
nature (Hair et al., 2017). Moreover, this approach is likely subject to Type I errors (Sarstedt
et al., 2011). The nonparametric approaches include permutation tests (Chin and Dibbern,
2010) and PLS-MGA (Henseler et al., 2009). Although no simulation research has compared
these approaches’ statistical power, the permutation test was recommended by Hair et al.
(2017) for its superior statistical properties. Researchers are advised to refer to Hair et al.
(2018b) for details.
Measurement invariance (or measurement equivalence), which refers to the testing of
invariance between measurement models (i.e. constructs) using data from two groups, is a
primary concern of MGA, and “failure to establish data equivalence is a potential source of
measurement error” (Hult et al., 2008, p. 1028). As participants across groups may respond to
scales differently, researchers need to confirm whether the group differences in model
estimates “are due to a group idiosyncrasy, or if they truly represent a differing structural
relationship” (Hair et al., 2018a, p. 742). By establishing measurement invariance,
researchers can be confident that measurement models across groups yield equivalent
representations of the same construct. In short, any MGA conclusions are unconvincing
without previously establishing measurement invariance (Hair et al., 2017). However,
despite its significance, many studies that require measurement invariance (e.g. cross-
cultural research) do not always apply it (He et al., 2008).
Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) (Steenkamp and Baumgartner, 1998;
Vandenberg and Lance, 2000) is the most common method to assess measurement
invariance in CB-SEM, and at least partial metric invariance is required for MGA here (Hair
et al., 2018a). In PLS-SEM, the measurement invariance of composite models (MICOM)
procedure (Henseler et al., 2016) is appropriate for evaluating measurement invariance.
When using MGA in PLS-SEM, it is required to establish configural and compositional
invariance, i.e. partial measurement invariance.
Apart from reporting the significant differences between groups, some recent studies
using PLS-SEM also extend the interpretation of MGA results through importance–
performance map analysis (IPMA) (Nunkoo et al., 2020). Through the combined application
of MGA and IPMA, the differences in the group-specific predecessors’ importance (total
effect) and performance (latent variable scores) become apparent, which helps researchers
identify predecessors with relatively high importance and low performance (Hair et al., Review of
2018b; Ringle and Sarstedt, 2016). In this regard, IPMA provides practical implications for moderation
formulating group-specific managerial or policy actions to improve the performance of the
identified predecessors.
analysis in
tourism
2.3 Moderation analysis using interaction effect
Generally, moderation analysis using the interaction effect approach is more appropriate
when the moderator variable is continuous, and researchers focus on one specific
relationship (Memon et al., 2019). However, it should be noted that the interaction effect can
be applied for a categorical moderator (Hair et al., 2017; Hayes, 2018). Researchers can model
a moderator by creating an interaction term, and the statistical significance of the
interaction effect demonstrates the existence of a moderating effect (Aiken and West, 1991;
Hayes, 2018).
2.3.1 Creation of the interaction term. The interaction term of observed variables in
multiple regression can be easily created by multiplying the moderator and predictor variables. In
SEM, there are several ways to create an interaction term involving latent variables, which
require meeting various (sometimes different) assumptions. According to Hayes et al. (2017), the
proper estimation of latent variables interactions remains considerably controversial because
different methods can yield inconsistent results and are susceptible to assumption violations.
However, it should be noted that while the methodological controversies may apply to factor-
based SEM (e.g. CB-SEM), this is not the case with composite-based SEM (e.g. PLS-SEM)
(Sarstedt et al., 2020). In practice, many researchers tend to use the SEM-based approach for the
inference of the baseline relationships while using the regression-based approach (e.g. PROCESS
macro) separately for the analysis of interactions (Cortina et al., 2021), which is not a
recommended approach when applying PLS-SEM (Sarstedt et al., 2020). As Hayes et al. (2017,
p. 81) mentioned, researchers would find the estimation of latent variables interactions “so
daunting that the unknown effects that can result from ignoring measurement error would seem
an acceptable price to pay in exchange for” the ease of using PROCESS. However, one major flaw
of the regression-based approach is that it fails to account for measurement error when
estimating relationships among latent variables (Aiken and West, 1991; Steinmetz et al., 2011).
Particularly, this issue of measurement error is more critical when interactions are involved,
because the attenuating effect of measurement error is exacerbated in the product of two fallible
measures, which further reduces the statistical power to detect the interaction effect, which is
typically small compared with the direct effect (Cortina et al., 2021; Sarstedt et al., 2020).
Since the seminal work of Kenny and Judd (1984) on latent variables interactions, two
categories of approaches have been developed by methodologists – i.e. multiple indicator
approaches (Jaccard and Wan, 1995; Little et al., 2006; Marsh et al., 2004; Ping, 1996) and
single-indicator approaches (Chin et al., 2003; Jöreskog and Yang, 1996; Ping, 1995). Each
approach has its merits and drawbacks; however, as mentioned earlier, their application
remains highly controversial. Moreover, because some of them are not available in user-
friendly software, most researchers are not capable of implementing them because of their
complexity (Cortina et al., 2021; Steinmetz et al., 2011). For example, the modeling of the
latent variables’ interactions is not available in the prevalent CB-SEM software, i.e. AMOS,
because it does not support nonlinear parameter constraints, which is necessary for latent
variables interactions (Jöreskog and Yang, 1996). Therefore, researchers need to manually
calculate the indicators of the interaction term before importing data into AMOS, which
requires prior knowledge of the complex equations underlying these approaches. This is
probably why some researchers using CB-SEM are daunted by the latent variables’
interactions and continue to rely on the disadvantageous regression-based approaches (e.g.
IJCHM PROCESS macro) that neglect measurement error (Hayes et al., 2017; Steinmetz et al., 2011).
In practice, although some researchers use CB-SEM instead of regression-based approaches,
they often avoid explicitly reporting how the latent interaction term has been manually
created. It is very likely that some of them do not use any of the approaches mentioned
above to create the latent interaction term; alternatively, they may simply calculate the
construct scores based on sum scores or averages of indicators (i.e. this is the typical way to
reduce latent variables to observed variable proxies when using regression-based
approaches), and then multiply them to obtain the interaction term. However, this practice
increases the uncertainty in the linkage between construct measurement and the actual
concept it seeks to represent (Rigdon et al., 2019), thus resulting in significant biases in the
parameter estimates because sum scores or averages ignore differences in the weights of
individual indicators (Hair et al., 2017). However, in the case of PLS-SEM, the prevalent
software packages such as SmartPLS and WarpPLS provide user-friendly options to create
interaction terms, namely, the standard product indicator approach, the orthogonalizing
approach (Little et al., 2006) and the two-stage approach by Chin et al. (2003). Moreover, in
the case of CB-SEM, the orthogonalizing approach is more advantageous compared with
other approaches for two reasons:
(1) It can eliminate multicollinearity (Fassott et al., 2016), while at the same time, the
residuals used to create the interaction term are generally fairly normally
distributed (Little et al., 2006), which is suitable to CB-SEM.
(2) It can easily be implemented manually in SPSS or Stata (Steinmetz et al., 2011).
Therefore, considering the ease of implementation and comparative merits, only
these three prominent approaches will be briefly discussed in the following section.

The choice of one of these three approaches depends on whether the constructs are
measured reflectively or formatively and whether the researchers’ focus is on statistical
power, point estimation accuracy or prediction accuracy (Hair et al., 2017; Henseler and Chin,
2010). If the moderator and/or the exogenous construct are measured formatively, the two-
stage approaches which can create single-indicant interaction terms (Chin et al., 2003;
Jöreskog and Yang, 1996; Ping, 1995) are the only choice (Becker et al., 2018). Note that only
Chin et al. (2003)’s two-stage approach is available in the user-friendly SmartPLS, while
researchers rarely apply others because of their complexity. Regarding reflective
measurement models, the choice depends on the researcher’s relative concern about Type I
error (i.e. claiming a moderating effect exists when it does not) and Type II error (i.e. failing
to detect a real moderating effect). Specifically, the two-stage approach yields higher
statistical power, while the orthogonalizing approach yields higher point estimation
accuracy and prediction accuracy (Henseler and Chin, 2010). However, both the product
indicator approach and the two-stage approach inevitably introduce multicollinearity into
the path model, while the orthogonalizing approach can eliminate multicollinearity (Fassott
et al., 2016). However, a recent simulation study by Becker et al. (2018, p. 11) stated that
“collinearity does not seem to be a critical issue in PLS-SEM” and recommended the routine
application of the advantageous two-stage approach in PLS-SEM. Apart from
multicollinearity, while PLS-SEM makes no distributional assumptions (Hair et al., 2017),
violation of normality assumption is another critical issue for researchers using CB-SEM
because the product of two normally distributed variables is not normal (Steinmetz et al.,
2011). Therefore, for both CB-SEM and PLS-SEM, the orthogonalizing approach is more
advantageous because of its ease of implementation and comparative merits regarding
assumption violations.
 2.3.2 The myth of mean-centering and standardization. Several well-known Review of
methodological scholars recommend mean-centering or standardizing the moderator and the moderation
independent variable (or their indicators) before creating the interaction term because of the
issue of multicollinearity (Aiken and West, 1991; Cohen et al., 2003; Hair et al., 2017). Although
analysis in
neither mean-centering nor standardization can entirely eliminate multicollinearity, it does help tourism
to reduce it (Hair et al., 2018a). However, multicollinearity does not affect the significance test of
the interaction effect (Echambadi and Hess, 2007; Irwin and McClelland, 2001) and has no
consequence on “the estimation accuracy, hypothesis tests, or standard errors” in most cases
(Hayes, 2018, p. 312). Although not necessary, mean-centering or standardization does facilitate
the interpretation of the interaction (Hayes, 2018).
2.3.3 Testing and probing interaction. To test the moderation hypothesis by regression
approach, researchers either:
 test the significance of the interaction term (i.e. simultaneous variable entry);
 use hierarchical multiple regression to test the significance of DR2 (i.e. hierarchical
variable entry); or
 they combine both approaches.

According to Hayes (2018), although these two approaches seem different on the surface,
they are, in fact, mathematically identical and always yield the same results. Thus, it is
unnecessary to conduct or report both tests. In SEM, the primary focus of researchers is
typically on the significance of the interaction effect.
The effect size (f2) of the interaction effect is particularly important because it is usually
very small (Aguinis et al., 2005), while an extremely small effect size may render a
significant moderating effect irrelevant. This is why researchers should avoid using the
regression-based approach for latent variables interactions because it has a downward bias
on the effect size. Kenny (2018) proposed comparatively realistic standards for the
interaction effect, which suggested that 0.005, 0.01 and 0.025 represent small, medium and
large effect sizes, respectively.
When interpreting the results, it is important to note the difference between the main effect
and the simple effect. The main effect represents the effect of X on Y in a model without
moderation. On the contrary, when the interaction term is included in the model, the effect of X
on Y is now referred to as a simple effect when the value of the moderator variable equals zero.
However, in many circumstances, zero is not a meaningful value on the scale of the moderator
(Hair et al., 2017). After mean-centering or standardization of the moderator variable, the value
of zero will become meaningful because it represents the average value of the moderator
variable. This facilitates the interpretation of the moderation effect, as one of the most common
methods to interpret the moderation effect is to probe the conditional effect of X on Y at a high
(one standard deviation above the average) and low levels (one standard deviation below the
average) of the moderator variable.
The moderation effect’s existence does not indicate where in the moderator’s distribution
the conditional effect of X on Y is significant (Aiken and West, 1991; Cohen et al., 2003).
Therefore, researchers need to probe an interaction. Because the interpretation of abstract
mathematical coefficients is usually very challenging, graphical demonstrations can make
the interpretation clearer (Hayes, 2018). Here, a simple slope plot is the most common way to
visualize results (Cohen et al., 2003; Hair et al., 2017).
To probe an interaction, researchers may use the pick-a-point approach (or spotlight
analysis) or the Johnson–Neyman technique (or floodlight analysis) (Bauer and Curran,
2005). Using the pick-a-point approach, most researchers choose the moderator’s mean and
IJCHM one standard deviation above and below to probe the specific conditional effect of X on Y.
This approach is, however, problematic if the moderator’s distribution is highly skewed
(Hayes, 2018). Furthermore, a significant problem of the pick-a-point approach is that
selecting the moderator’s values is often arbitrary, thus potentially leading to different
interpretations depending on chosen values. In contrast, the Johnson–Neyman technique “is
essentially the pick-a-point approach conducted in reverse,” and can solve the issue of
arbitrariness (Hayes, 2018, p. 254). While the pick-a-point approach requires the selection of
values of the moderator (M) at which to estimate the conditional effect of X on Y, the
Johnson–Neyman technique, in turn, generates the “region of significance” by identifying
the values of M that “demarcate the points along the continuum” of M where the conditional
effect of X on Y transitions between statistically insignificant and significant (Hayes, 2018,
p. 255). Both approaches are available in the PROCESS macro (Preacher and Hayes, 2004).
SmartPLS 3 (Ringle et al., 2015) further introduced the function of creating slope plots (only
the mean 6 SD function is available).

2.4 Choice between multi-group analysis and moderation analysis using interaction effects
When using multiple regressions, researchers are typically not bothered by the choice
between MGA and the interaction term approach, regardless of the data type of the
moderator variable. In the context of SEM, there is no general agreement on which approach
is more appropriate, but rather it depends on the specific research objectives and the data
type of the moderator. In general, MGA is preferable when the moderator is categorical,
while moderation analysis using interaction effects is more suitable when the moderator is
continuous (Hair et al., 2017; Memon et al., 2019).
Generally, MGA is advantageous in terms of the test and demonstration of moderation
(Hair et al., 2018a). Moreover, modeling the interaction effect of continuous latent variables is
relatively cumbersome in some software packages (e.g. AMOS) (Memon et al., 2019). This is
why some researchers tend to artificially transform the continuous moderator into a
categorical variable for MGA. Hair et al. (2018a) hold that if the continuous moderator can be
categorized theoretically or logically, then the creation of groups for MGA can be justified.
Hair et al. (2018a, p. 750) strongly recommend using MGA “unless it simply cannot be
justified.”
However, many methodologists admonish researchers against artificially categorizing a
continuous moderator, which they believe can cause loss of information and reduction in
statistical power for detecting moderating effects (Cohen et al., 2003; Dawson, 2014). Another
weakness of MGA is its inability to interpret the statistical significance of the interaction
effect and draw conclusions about the magnitude of the effect (Cortina et al., 2021;
MacCallum et al., 2002). In this context, Hayes (2018, p. 265) claims that MGA is appropriate
only if the moderator is naturally categorical or experimentally created, and he urges
researchers to “respect the continuous nature” of the moderator.
Although this issue remains controversial, it is reasonable to respect the nature of the
moderator variable and avoid artificial categorization. It is irrational to bear the unknown
negative consequences simply because MGA can provide an intuitive way of testing and
demonstrating moderation.

3. Methods
The systematic review in this study was conducted based on the reporting checklist of the
preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) (Liberati
et al., 2009). In general, systematic reviews on methodological issues (Truong et al., 2020), or
bibliometric studies (Ali et al., 2019), help uncovering critical issues and state-of-the-art of
research in an area of study and may therefore significantly help to increase the quality of Review of
future research. Because this review aims to evaluate the general practice of moderation moderation
analysis in the tourism and hospitality literature, thereby providing guidance for future
research, the quality of articles is more critical than the comprehensiveness of the retrieve.
analysis in
Therefore, to retrieve articles on moderation analysis, only those journals in the Web of tourism
Science’s category of “hospitality, leisure, sport and tourism” (sports journals were
excluded) were selected.
The titles, abstracts, keywords plus and author keywords were searched using the
following search strings: “multigroup analysis” OR “multi group analysis” OR “multigroup
analysis” OR moderat* (as of April 2021). The asterisk (*) was used as a wildcard to cover
words such as “moderator(s),” “moderation,” “moderating” and “moderated.” This study
focused only on articles published in the recent five years (2016–2020), which may be
deemed an adequate scope and timeframe to fulfill this study’s objective. The search
resulted in 1,273 records, and their bibliographic information was exported to an Excel
spreadsheet for further data management.
Next, the titles and abstracts of the retrieved articles were screened, leading to the
exclusion of 186 irrelevant records (e.g. to exclude irrelevant records, we filtered the articles
in an Excel spreadsheet by searching their titles and abstracts using keywords such as
ANOVA, ANCOVA, MANOVA, MANCOVA, moderated mediation and mediated
moderation, etc.). The full texts of the remaining 1,087 articles were subsequently
downloaded for further screening. After reviewing the full text, another 487 articles (e.g.
meta-analysis, ANOVA, ANCOVA, MANOVA, MANCOVA, moderated mediation,
mediated moderation, moderated moderation and hierarchical linear modeling, etc.) that did
not conform to the research scope were dropped. Any disagreement was discussed and
resolved by consensus to avoid any inappropriate exclusion. The above screening process
yielded 600 eligible articles. The PRISMA flowchart (Moher et al., 2009) in Figure 2 shows
the screening process in detail.
The categories of data extraction regarding moderation analysis were confirmed by
literature review and focus group discussions among the authors. Besides, two authors
independently conducted a pilot scrutinization consisting of 30 randomly selected articles to
refine the data extraction categories further. The eligible articles were then imported into
NVivo 12 for data extraction. By using NVivo’s text search function, one reviewer used the
Boolean operator “OR” to combine all the keywords to locate and highlight important
information in an efficient manner. This approach can also help the reviewer avoid any
omission of valuable information because of negligence. A long search string consisting of
comprehensive keywords related to moderation analysis was applied in this review. The
following keywords are some examples: moderat*, MGA, multigroup, multigroup,
continuous, categorical, chi-square, x 2, mean-centered, mean centered, MCFA, MICOM, etc.

4. Review findings
A total of 600 articles met the eligibility criteria for further quantitative synthesis, among
which 313 studies conducted MGA and 287 applied moderation analysis using the
interaction effect approach. Table 1 shows that a great number of articles were published in
two leading hospitality journals, to be specific, International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management (n = 95) and International Journal of Hospitality Management (n =
89), followed by the Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing (n = 48), Asia Pacific Journal
of Tourism Research (n = 44) and Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management (n = 43).
In general, the number of moderation papers published in tourism and hospitality journals
has been increasing steadily in recent years. The following sections reviewed and analyzed
IJCHM details regarding hypothesis development, MGA and moderation analysis using interaction
effects.

4.1 Hypothesis development of moderating effect

Of the 600 eligible articles, most studies (n = 570, 95%) explicitly hypothesized the
moderating effect. At the same time, all of them justified the proposed moderating effect
based on prior literature that has tested the focal moderating effect of the same or similar
moderator. However, only 146 studies (25.61%) further rationalize their hypothesis based on
theory or a model.

4.2 Characteristics of the studies using multi-group analysis

4.2.1 Data analysis methods and software. As shown in Figure 3, out of 313 papers that
have applied the MGA approach, 77% (n = 241) applied CB-SEM to perform MGA, while
23% (n = 72) used PLS-SEM. Among the studies using CB-SEM, AMOS (n = 137, 56.85%)
was the most frequently used software, whereas SmartPLS (n = 54, 75%) dominated in PLS-
SEM-based studies.

Figure 2.
PRISMA flowchart
diagram
4.2.2 Data type and artificial categorization of the moderator variable. Regarding the data Review of
type of the moderator variable, the moderator was a categorical variable in 141 studies and a moderation
continuous variable in 171 studies. As shown in Table 2, different approaches were applied
analysis in
to transform the continuous moderator variable into a categorical variable.
When the moderator variable was a continuous observed variable, few studies (n = 13) tourism
have applied MGA for moderation analysis. Five studies split the groups according to some
industry practice, such as Okumus et al. (2019), who grouped participants based on the
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s Body Mass Index (BMI, a measure of
overweight). Five studies used the moderator’s mean or median value to split the data.
When the moderator variable was a latent variable, 62 (39.24%) studies applied K-means
cluster analysis to divide the respondents into high- and low-value groups. Another frequent
approach was to use the median (n = 41, 25.95%) and mean value (n = 23, 14.56%) of the
moderator variable to split the data. Another eight studies simply categorized the data
according to Likert scales. For instance, Taheri et al. (2019) divided the respondents based
on the mean of the construct into low (1–4) and high (4–7) groups based on a seven-point
Likert scale. Few studies used the percentile approach to split the data, such as first and last
quartiles (n = 4) and 33rd and 66th percentiles (n = 1) of the moderator variable.
4.2.3 Test of measurement invariance. Figure 4 shows that nearly two-thirds of the articles
(n = 200, 63.9%) did not test measurement invariance. Among those using CB-SEM (n = 241),
only 82 studies (34.02%) conducted MCFA to test measurement invariance. In contrast, among
those using PLS-SEM (n = 72), 29 studies (40.28%) performed the MICOM procedure.

Journal 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 14 14 22 22 23 95

International Journal of Hospitality Management 10 12 14 25 28 89
Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 9 12 8 14 5 48
Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 7 8 9 11 9 44
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 1 4 1 9 28 43
Tourism Management 11 10 5 6 5 37
Current Issues in Tourism 3 7 6 2 15 33
Journal of Sustainable Tourism 1 1 6 4 14 26
Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 2 2 8 6 4 22
Journal of Travel Research 2 4 – 3 13 22
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 1 2 4 4 9 20
Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management 3 3 1 5 8 20
International Journal of Tourism Research 4 2 1 6 6 19
Tourism Management Perspectives 2 2 3 6 6 19
Journal of Vacation Marketing 1 – – 6 5 12
Tourism Review 1 2 – 1 7 11
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly 1 – 3 – 3 7
Tourism Economics – 1 1 1 4 7
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Technology – – – 1 4 5
Journal of Hospitality Leisure Sport and Tourism Education – – – 1 4 5
Annals of Tourism Research 1 1 1 1 – 4
Leisure Studies – 1 – 1 2 4
Table 1.
Journal of Leisure Research 1 – 1 – 1 3
Leisure Sciences 1 – – – 2 3 Summary of the
Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change – – – 1 – 1 publication
Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism – 1 – – – 1 information of the
Total 76 89 94 136 205 600 eligible articles
IJCHM

Figure 3.
Data analysis
methods and
software (MGA)

4.2.4 Test of differences between groups. Table 3 shows the various approaches to test the
differences in path coefficients between groups. Chi-square difference tests (D x 2) test (n = 201,
83.4%) was the most frequently used method in CB-SEM, while in PLS-SEM, researchers
applied one or combined several of the following approaches to test the group difference, i.e.
parametric tests, PLS-MGA and permutation test. However, 20 studies only reported the
significance of group-specific path coefficients but did not test the differences between groups.

4.3 Characteristics of the studies using the interaction effect approach for moderation analysis
4.3.1 Data analysis methods and software. As illustrated in Table 4, most moderation
analyses using interaction effects were conducted through regression-based approaches,
either by hierarchical multiple regression (n = 75, 26.13%) or multiple regression (n = 111,

Data type Data transformation Total

Measured variable-categorical 141

Measured variable-continuous 13
Based on industry practice 5
Median 3
Mean 2
First and last quartiles 1
K-means cluster analysis 1
Not mention 1
Latent variable 158
K-means cluster analysis 62
Median 41
Mean 23
Based on Likert scale 8
Table 2. First and last quartiles 4
Data type and 33/66%iles 1
transformation of the Not mention 19
moderator variable Total 313
 Review of
moderation
analysis in
tourism

Figure 4.
Test of measurement
invariance

38.68%). Moreover, among these studies using regression-based approaches (n = 186), 52

(27.96%) studies also used SEM (CB-SEM: n = 49; PLS-SEM: n = 3) in tandem, which
indicates that they use SEM to test the path model while using regression-based approaches
separately for moderation analysis. On the contrary, only 101 studies (35.19%) applied SEM-
based approaches to test the significance of the interaction effect. SPSS and the PROCESS
macro (Preacher and Hayes, 2004) were frequently used by researchers for hierarchical

Approach Total

CB-SEM 241
Chi-square difference test 201
Parametric test 19
Only report group-specific path coefficient (no test of differences) 16
Chow test 2
Not mention 3
PLS-SEM 72
PLS-MGA 17
PLS-MGA and permutation test 8
PLS-MGA and parametric test 1
Parametric test 29
Permutation test 5
Parametric test and permutation test 7
Only report group-specific path coefficient (no test of differences) 4 Table 3.
Not mention 1 Test of differences in
Total 313 path coefficients
IJCHM multiple regression and multiple regression, while AMOS, Mplus and SmartPLS were
typically used for SEM.
4.3.2 Mean-centering and standardization of the moderator and IV. Table 5 shows that
53.33% of the studies using hierarchical multiple regression explicitly reported that they
mean-centered or standardized the moderator and independent variables. This percentage is
21.62%, 30.61% and 7.69% for studies using multiple regression, CB-SEM and PLS-SEM,
respectively.
4.3.3 Method to create the interaction term. In those studies that use hierarchical
multiple regression and multiple regression, the interaction term is simply created by
multiplying the moderator and independent variables. Interestingly, of the 49 studies using
CB-SEM, 36 (73.47%) of them did not report how the interaction term was created. Eight of
them (16.33%) computed the scores of the latent variables in a first step (e.g. sum scores or
averages of indicators) and then multiplied them to create the interaction term. Other studies
used the product indicator approach (n = 3, 6.12%) and Ping (1995)’s single-indicant
approach (n = 2, 4.08%). Among the 52 studies using PLS-SEM, researchers typically
applied the product indicator approach (n = 14, 26.92%), the two-stage approach (n = 11,
21.15%) and the orthogonalizing approach (n = 1, 1.92%) to create the interaction term. In
comparison, the remaining 26 studies (50 %) did not mention any specific methods.
4.3.4 Test and probe of the interaction effect. Studies using multiple regression, CB-SEM
and PLS-SEM performed a significance test of the interaction term’s coefficient to support
the existence of the interaction effect. However, in studies using hierarchical multiple
regression (n = 75), the practice of moderation analysis is relatively inconsistent. Ten
studies only reported the significance of DR2. Among the remaining 65 studies, some studies
(n = 25) only reported the significance test results of the interaction term’s coefficient rather
than DR2 in the main text, although they claimed to have used hierarchical multiple

Data analysis method Total

Hierarchical multiple regression 75 (26.13%)

SPSS 34
PROCESS macro 2
R 1
Stata 2
Not mention 36
Multiple regression 111 (38.68%)
PROCESS macro 41
SPSS 18
Stata 5
R 1
Not mention 46
CB-SEM 49 (17.07%)
AMOS 17
Mplus 11
LISREL 6
Not mention 15
Table 4.
PLS-SEM 52 (18.12%)
Data analysis SmartPLS 41
methods and Warp PLS 1
software (simple Not mention 10
moderation analysis) Total 287
regression and presented the significance test results of both the interaction term’s Review of
coefficient and DR2 in tables. Moreover, only 9 of 287 studies (3.14%) reported the effect size moderation
f2 of the moderating effect.
Table 6 shows that more than half of the studies using hierarchical multiple regression
analysis in
(n = 42, 56%), multiple regression (n = 68, 61.26%) and CB-SEM (n = 31, 63.27%) presented tourism
a slope plot to facilitate the interpretation of the interaction effect. Surprisingly, of the 52
studies using PLS-SEM, only 10 reported the slope-plot, given that the slope-plot could be
easily generated in SmartPLS. Although some studies presented the slope-plot showing
differences in conditional effects between groups, many of them (54 of 75 hierarchical
multiple regression studies; 79 of 111 multiple regression studies; 35 of 49 CB-SEM studies;
50 of 52 PLS-SEM studies) did not explicitly probe and report the significance of the
conditional effect (i.e. where in the distribution of the moderator the conditional effect of X
on Y is significant). The pick-a-point approach and Johnson–Neyman technique were
generally applied in those studies that probed the interaction effect.

5. Discussion
The previously outlined empirical synthesis of studies from the tourism and hospitality area
revealed that most studies departed from earlier studies when hypothesizing their
moderating effects. However, while almost all studies explicitly hypothesized the
moderating effect, only roughly a quarter (25.61%) used some theory or model to underpin
the hypothesized moderating effects. Extending existing theories or models via examining

Mean-centering Standardization Not mention (%)

Hierarchical multiple regression 33 7 35 40 (53.33%)

Multiple regression 21 3 87 24 (21.62%) Table 5.
CB-SEM 12 3 34 15 (30.61%) Mean-centering and
PLS-SEM 3 1 48 4 (7.69%) standardization of
Total 69 14 204 83 the moderator and IV

Method Slope plot Total

Hierarchical multiple regression 42 (56%) 75

Pick-a-point (mean value and 6 SD) 18
Pick-a-point (categorical moderator) 3
No probe of moderation 54
Multiple regression 68 (61.26%) 111
Pick-a-point (mean value and 6 SD) 18
Pick-a-point (categorical moderator) 5
Pick-a-point (16th 50th and 84th percentiles) 1
Johnson–Neyman technique 8
No probe of moderation 79
CB-SEM 31 (63.27%) 49
Pick-a-point (mean value and 6 SD) 14
No probe of moderation 35
PLS-SEM 10 (19.23%) 52 Table 6.
Pick-a-point (mean value and 6 SD) 2 Probe and
No probe of moderation 50 visualization of the
Total 287 interaction effect
IJCHM moderating effects is hardly achievable if the moderating effects lack a robust theoretical
underpinning. Even in cases when the exploratory inclusion of moderators into a model is
based on a researcher’s “hunch” and proves statistically significant, researchers are advised
to look for plausible theoretical explanations post hoc.
Regarding tourism and hospitality studies that use MGA to model and test moderating
effects, it is noteworthy that only a few studies adopted this approach to moderation
analysis when the moderator was an observed continuous variable (35.14%). However, this
result is not surprising because the interaction effects approach is more appropriate for
observed continuous variables. When it comes to assessing measurement invariance, it
concerns that nearly two-thirds (63.9%) of the studies did not conduct any tests to confirm
measurement invariance across groups, although measurement invariance testing across
groups is across groups is mandatory for making reliable and valid conclusions about
moderating effects in an MGA setting. Finally, regarding the testing of differences and
interpretation of results, most CB-SEM-based studies (83.4%) used Chi-square difference
tests of path coefficients between groups in MGA.
In contrast, PLS-SEM-based studies used parametric tests, PLS-MGA, permutation tests
or their combination. Very few studies (6.39%) did not test the differences between path
coefficients but only reported group-specific coefficients. Note, researchers who use MGA
should test the differences between groups because a significant relationship in one group
and an insignificant one in the other group do not indicate a difference between groups.
When it comes to studies that use the interaction effects approach, 52 studies used SEM
(CB-SEM: n = 49; PLS-SEM: n = 3) and regression-based approaches in tandem. The results
indicate that researchers using CB-SEM are probably more daunted by latent variable
interactions than those using PLS-SEM because SmartPLS provides user-friendly ways to
create the interaction term. More importantly, future researchers should avoid using the
disadvantageous regression-based approaches for moderation analysis of latent variables.
Regarding the data transformation before creating the interaction term, very few studies
(28.92%) had explicitly reported that they mean-centered or standardized the moderator and
independent variables. Although the result of significance tests of the interaction effect is
not affected by this step, it should be noted that mean-centering or standardization can
facilitate the following interpretation of the moderation effect. Concerning the methods used
to create the interaction term, it is noteworthy that 73.47% of studies using CB-SEM did not
report how the term was created, as opposed to 26 out of 52 studies using PLS-SEM (50 %).
More emphasis and details should be devoted to this step in future studies because this is a
necessary information to understand and possibly replicate studies fully. Surprisingly,
among those studies that reported the method of creating the interaction term, only one
study used the orthogonalizing approach, which indicates that researchers in tourism and
hospitality have not fully realized the merits of this approach; others used the product
indicator approach, Ping (1995)’s single-indicant approach or Chin et al. (2003)’s two-stage
approach. However, these approaches, more or less, have some shortcomings, either because
of potential violations of assumptions or the complexity of manual implementation. Finally,
when it comes to testing the significance of moderating effects and interpretation of results,
the empirical synthesis showed that all multiple regression- and SEM-based studies based
their conclusions on significance tests of the interaction term effect. Approaches somewhat
differ for those studies applying hierarchical multiple regression; the majority (86.67%)
reported the significance results of DR2 and the interaction effect in tandem, while some
studies (13.33%) only reported the significance result of DR2. It should be noted that both
approaches lead to the same results. Surprisingly, only nine studies reported the effect size
of the moderating effect, despite its importance in the context of moderation analysis. Future
studies are advised to report the effect size of the moderating effect. Moreover, to facilitate a Review of
more straightforward interpretation of results, more than half of the studies used slope- moderation
plots; however, 75.96% of the studies did not explicitly probe interaction effects and report
analysis in
results, with this share of studies being higher for SEM-based studies (84.16%).
Accordingly, future studies in the tourism and hospitality area should devote particular tourism
attention to this issue when using the interaction term approach for testing moderating
effects.

6. Conclusion
Following the previous discussion, Table 7 seeks to summarize the key issues relevant to the
modeling of moderating effects in regression- and/or SEM-based models and provide
guidelines and recommendations on how to address each issue adequately. To assist future
research that involves moderating effects, a step-by-step guideline is provided for both
major modeling approaches, i.e. MGA vs the interaction effects approach.

6.1 Theoretical and methodological implications

As one of the first study to provide robust guidelines for moderation analysis, based on a
critical and systematic review of papers published in top-tier journals in tourism and
hospitality and the latest developments on moderation analysis in the wider literature, this
article has important theoretical and methodological significance for the academic research
in tourism and hospitality as well as general social science disciplines. As the review results
showed, the inclusion of moderating effects into research frameworks has significantly
increased in recent years. However, the review also revealed that there is still a limited
understanding regarding several critical issues pertaining to the individual steps of
moderation analysis, which may subsequently lead to questionable results for theory
building and development. These critical issues include:
 the development of moderating effects hypotheses;
 statistical assessments of moderating effects; and
 the interpretation of results resulting from both of the available testing approaches,
i.e. MGA and the interaction effects approach.

When including moderator variables into a research framework, the researcher’s goal is to
understand better the mechanism underlying an independent variable’s effect on a
dependent variable under different circumstances (i.e. different levels of the moderator).
This may subsequently lead to a better understanding of the baseline relationship and
advancement of existing theoretical knowledge. If, however, scholars apply mistaken
practices from development of hypothesis, over data analysis, to the results interpretation,
then the efforts to develop and advance theory are likely to fail. Therefore, by providing
robust guidelines for moderation analysis in the tourism and hospitality area, this article is
of great theoretical significance to this field. More specifically, through a comprehensive
review of articles published in top journals in tourism and hospitality, this article identified
the typical improper practices applied by researchers in the individual steps of moderation
analysis, from hypothesis development, the choice between alternative approaches (MGA
and the interaction effects approach) and the interpretation of results. This article sets up
robust guidelines for more reliable and valid testing and interpretation of moderating effects
in future studies by highlighting the most common methodological misconceptions and
mistaken practices.
IJCHM Key issues related to the modeling of
moderating effects Guidelines and recommendations

Hypothesis development
Just like the main effect hypothesis, the inclusion of moderating effect into a model
requires a robust justification by theory. Including moderating effect just because
previous studies did so or merely by confirming statistically the significant effect
without proper theoretical underpinning is not sufficient. Theoretically justified
moderating effect can advance existing theory by pointing to the boundaries of
existing (main effects) theories (i.e. negative level effects) or showcasing conditions
under which main effects relationships intensify (i.e. positive level effects)

Choosing between MGA and
interaction effect
Steps for MGA and recommendations
1. Method for splitting continuous
data
Respect the nature of the moderator variable! In general, MGA is preferable when
the moderator is categorical, while the interaction effects approach is more suitable
when the moderator is continuous
It is irrational to artificially categorize the continuous moderator variable and bear
the unknown negative consequences simply because MGA can provide an intuitive
way of testing and demonstrating moderation
There is, however, no consensus among researchers on whether to artificially
categorize the continuous moderator variable. If the researcher decides to split the
continuous variable, at least, he/she should make sure the categorization makes sense
(i.e. is based on theory or logic) (Hair et al., 2018a)
If the distribution of the moderator shows bimodality (two peaks), measures of
central tendency (i.e. mean and median) are typically used to split the sample into
high- and low-value groups. Cluster analysis (e.g. K-means clustering) can also be
applied
However, if the distribution shows unimodality (one peak), the percentile approach
should be applied. Researchers can delete some fraction of the observations (i.e.
one-fourth to one-third) around the median, which can make the distribution of the
remaining data bimodal
In addition, industry standards or Likert-type scales may alternatively be used to
create the categories. Again, the categorization should make sense, and bimodality
should be ensured

2. Measurement invariance testing For models of latent variables, confirmation of measurement invariance across
method groups is a necessary step for valid testing of moderating effects using the MGA
approach
When using CB-SEM, multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) is
appropriate to confirm measurement invariance of latent variables across groups.
In contrast, the measurement invariance for composite (MICOM) procedure is more
appropriate when using PLS-SEM

3. Methods for comparison between If using CB-SEM, then parametric approaches are appropriate for comparing path
paths and interpreting results coefficients across groups (e.g. the Chi-square difference test between the free and
constrained models)
If using variance-based modeling, then nonparametric PLS-MGA and the
permutation approach are more appropriate, given PLS-SEM’s nonparametric
nature. According to Hair et al. (2017), the latter approach is preferred because of
superior statistical properties
Steps for interaction effect and
recommendations
Table 7. 1. Method for creating the interaction For models of observed variables, the difference in results is trivial between SEM-
Proposed guidelines term and regression-based approaches. For models of latent variables, researchers
for moderation should avoid using the disadvantageous regression-based approaches
analysis (continued)

Key issues related to the modeling of
moderating effects
2. Methods to assess the significance
of interaction effects
3. Interpretation of results
Review of
moderation
analysis in
tourism
Guidelines and recommendations
If the moderator and/or the independent (exogenous) variable are identified
formatively, then the two-stage approach is the only option to operationalize the
interaction term
If the moderator and the independent (exogenous) variable are identified
reflectively, then the product indicator approach, the orthogonalizing approach or
the two-stage approach can be used. The choice depends on researchers’ relative
concern about Type I and Type II errors. The two-stage approach yields higher
statistical power, while the orthogonalizing approach yields higher point
estimation accuracy and prediction accuracy. The product indicator approach and
the two-stage approach, however, inevitably lead to multicollinearity. Moreover,
the orthogonalizing approach can eliminate multicollinearity and is less vulnerable
to the violation of normality
Mean-center or standardize the moderator variable/indicators to facilitate the
interpretation of the moderation effect
The most common way to explore the presence of moderating effects is to examine
the statistical significance of the interaction term with simultaneous inclusion of
all variables (i.e. independent, moderator, interaction term). Alternatively, a
hierarchical approach (e.g. hierarchical regression) can be used to examine
potentially significant changes in R2
Spotlight analysis (pick-a-point approach) and floodlight analysis (Johnson–
Neyman technique) can be used to probe an interaction. The latter approach is
recommended as it can circumvent the arbitrariness of the floodlight approach.
Both approaches, however, have limited value in case of highly skewed
distributions of the moderator variable
Significance of the interaction term or, alternatively, a significant change in R2
after including the interaction term in the model provides empirical evidence for
the presence of a significant moderating effect
The sign of the interaction effect signals whether the moderator strengthens or
weakens the baseline relationship. The interaction effect’s path/regression
coefficient can be interpreted as an increase/decrease of the baseline relationship’s
coefficient (between focal independent and dependent variable) when the
moderator variable is increased by one standard deviation
Report the effect size (f2) of the moderating effect by following the guidelines by
Kenny (2018)!
Slope plots can be used for visual presentation of results and more straightforward
interpretation. Usually, three slopes are depicted in a graph. One slope represents
the average baseline effect. A second slope represents changes in the baseline
coefficient when the moderator increases by one standard deviation. This slope is
obtained by adding the interaction coefficient to the baseline coefficient.
Analogously, a third slope is obtained by subtracting the interaction coefficient
from the baseline coefficient
Note that researchers should avoid interpreting the effect of independent variable
on dependent variable as direct effect in both regression- and SEM-based models
after including moderator. The direct effect of X on Y should be tested in a
separate model without moderation Table 7.
IJCHM 6.2 Limitations and future research
Because of the vast number of studies applying moderation analysis in the literature, the
present study focused only on papers published in tourism and hospitality SSCI journals.
Accordingly, the review findings of this study are confined to the tourism and hospitality
field. Therefore, similar research is encouraged to be conducted in other disciplines of social
science, which can provide a more holistic picture of the practices of moderator analysis and
the individual steps, including hypothesis development, moderation assessment and results
interpretation. Moreover, those studies that applied a more complex framework such as
moderated mediation, mediated moderation, three-ways interaction and curvilinear
moderation were excluded from the review. Future research is thus also encouraged to
review and assess these more complex approaches to moderation analysis to guide future
research, again, by focusing on the differences in hypothesis development, statistical
assessment and interpretation with simple moderation analysis.
It should be noted that, while the current study addressed the handling of observed
heterogeneity, we need to be aware of the importance of unobserved heterogeneity, which is
critical in any structural equation modeling analysis to ensure the validity of the results
(Becker et al., 2013; Jedidi et al., 1997). In both CB-SEM and PLS-SEM, several methods are
available to uncover unobserved heterogeneity. Some articles (Rigdon et al., 2011) even point
out how the problem of unobserved heterogeneity is relevant when researchers use their
knowledge of observed heterogeneity (i.e. by aiming to uncover unobserved heterogeneity
within groups that have been previously defined). The current study focused only on
observed heterogeneity (based on theory and a priori knowledge) but did not address the
critical issue of unobserved heterogeneity (i.e. to ensure the validity of the results). Future
research needs to focus on this issue and provide guidelines for analyzing unobserved
heterogeneity.

References
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J.C., Boik, R.J. and Pierce, C.A. (2005), “Effect size and power in assessing
moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: a 30-year review”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 94-107.
Aguinis, H., Edwards, J.R. and Bradley, K.J. (2016), “Improving our understanding of moderation and
mediation in strategic management research”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 20 No. 4,
pp. 665-685.
Aiken, L.S. and West, S.G. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, SAGE,
London.
Ali, F., Park, E., Kwon, J. and Chae, B. (2019), “30 Years of contemporary hospitality management”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 7, pp. 2641-2665.
Andersson, U., Cuervo-Cazurra, A. and Nielsen, B.B. (2020), “Explaining interaction effects within and
across levels of analysis”, in Eden, L., Nielsen, B.B. and Verbeke, A. (Eds), Research Methods in
International Business, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 331-349.
Bauer, D.J. and Curran, P.J. (2005), “Probing interactions in fixed and multilevel regression: inferential
and graphical techniques”, Multivariate Behavioral Research, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 373-400.
Becker, J.-M., Rai, A., Ringle, C.M. and Xf Lckner, F. (2013), “Discovering unobserved heterogeneity in
structural equation models to avert validity threats”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 665-694.
Becker, J.-M., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2018), “Estimating moderating effects in PLS-SEM and
PLSc-SEM: interaction term generation* data treatment”, Journal of Applied Structural Equation
Modeling, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 1-21.
Chin, W.W. and Dibbern, J. (2010), “A permutation based procedure for multi-group PLS analysis: Review of
results of tests of differences on simulated data and a cross cultural analysis of the sourcing of
information system services between Germany and the USA”, in Esposito Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W.,
moderation
Henseler, J. and Wang, H. (Eds), Handbook of Partial Least Squares: Concepts, Methods and analysis in
Applications, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp. 171-193. tourism
Chin, W.W., Marcolin, B.L. and Newsted, P.R. (2003), “A partial least squares latent variable modeling
approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a monte carlo simulation study and an
electronic-mail emotion/adoption study”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 189-217.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G. and Aiken, L.S. (2003), Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis
for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cortina, J.M., Markell-Goldstein, H.M., Green, J.P. and Chang, Y. (2021), “How are we testing
interactions in latent variable models? Surging forward or fighting shy?”, Organizational
Research Methods, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 26-54.
Dawson, J.F. (2014), “Moderation in management research: what, why, when, and how”, Journal of
Business and Psychology, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 1-19.
Echambadi, R. and Hess, J.D. (2007), “Mean-centering does not alleviate collinearity problems in
moderated multiple regression models”, Marketing Science, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 438-445.
Fassott, G., Henseler, J. and Coelho, P.S. (2016), “Testing moderating effects in PLS path models with
composite variables”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9, pp. 1887-1900.
Frazier, P.A., Tix, A.P. and Barron, K.E. (2004), “Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling
psychology research”, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 1, pp. 115.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2018a), Multivariate Data Analysis, 8 edn,
Cengage, Andover.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2017), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), 2 edn, SAGE Publications, London.
Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M. and Gudergan, S.P. (2018b), Advanced Issues in Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling, SAGE Publications, London.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A
Regression-Based Approach, 2 edn, Guilford publications, London.
Hayes, A.F., Montoya, A.K. and Rockwood, N.J. (2017), “The analysis of mechanisms and their
contingencies: PROCESS versus structural equation modeling”, Australasian Marketing Journal,
Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 76-81.
He, Y., Merz, M.A. and Alden, D.L. (2008), “Diffusion of measurement invariance assessment in cross-
national empirical marketing research: perspectives from the literature and a survey of
researchers”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 64-83.
Henseler, J. and Chin, W.W. (2010), “A comparison of approaches for the analysis of interaction effects
between latent variables using partial least squares path modeling”, Structural Equation
Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 82-109.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), “Testing measurement invariance of composites using
partial least squares”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 405-431.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing”, in Sinkovics, R.R. and Ghauri, P.N. (Eds), New
Challenges to International Marketing (Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20),
Emerald, Bingley, pp. 277-319.
Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J., Griffith, D.A., Finnegan, C.A., Gonzalez-Padron, T., Harmancioglu, N.,
Huang, Y., Talay, M.B. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2008), “Data equivalence in cross-cultural
international business research: assessment and guidelines”, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 1027-1044.
IJCHM Irwin, J.R. and McClelland, G.H. (2001), “Misleading heuristics and moderated multiple regression
models”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 100-109.
Jaccard, J. and Wan, C.K. (1995), “Measurement error in the analysis of interaction effects between
continuous predictors using multiple regression: multiple indicator and structural equation
approaches”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 117 No. 2, pp. 348-357.
Jedidi, K., Jagpal, H.S. and DeSarbo, W.S. (1997), “Finite-mixture structural equation models for
response-based segmentation and unobserved heterogeneity”, Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 39-59.
Jöreskog, K.G. and Yang, F. (1996), “Nonlinear structural equation models: the Kenny-Judd model with
interaction effects”, in Marcoulides, G. and Schumacker, R. (Eds), Advanced Structural Equation
Modeling: Issues and Techniques, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 57-88.
Keil, M., Bernard, C.Y.T., Wei, K.-K., Saarinen, T., Tuunainen, V. and Wassenaar, A. (2000), “A cross-
cultural study on escalation of commitment behavior in software projects”, MIS Quarterly,
Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 299-325.
Kenny, D.A. and Judd, C.M. (1984), “Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent
variables”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 201-210.
Kenny, D.A. (2018), “Moderator variables: introduction”, available at: http://davidakenny.net/cm/
moderation.htm#GO (accessed 15 May 2021).
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Clarke, M.,
Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J. and Moher, D. (2009), “The PRISMA statement for reporting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions:
Explanation and elaboration”, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 62 No. 10, pp. 1-34.
Little, T.D., Bovaird, J.A. and Widaman, K.F. (2006), “On the merits of orthogonalizing powered and
product terms: implications for modeling interactions among latent variables”, Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 497-519.
MacCallum, R.C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K.J. and Rucker, D.D. (2002), “On the practice of dichotomization
of quantitative variables”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 19-40.
MacKinnon, D.P. (2011), “Integrating mediators and moderators in research design”, Research on Social
Work Practice, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 675-681.
Marsh, H.W., Wen, Z. and Hau, K.T. (2004), “Structural equation models of latent interactions:
evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction”, Psychological
Methods, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 275-300.
Memon, M., Cheah, J., Ramayah, T., Ting, H., Chuah, F. and Cham, T. (2019), “Moderation analysis:
issues and guidelines”, Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J. and Altman, D.G. (2009), “Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, PLoS Medicine, Vol. 6 No. 7, p. e1000097.
Nunkoo, R., Teeroovengadum, V., Ringle, C.M. and Sunnassee, V. (2020), “Service quality and customer
satisfaction: the moderating effects of hotel star rating”, International Journal of Hospitality
Management, Vol. 91, pp. 102414.
Okumus, B., Chaulagain, S. and Giritlioglu, I. (2019), “Examining the impacts of job stress and job
satisfaction on hotel employees’ eating behavior”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 558-575.
Ping, R.A. (1995), “A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent variables”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 336-347.
Ping, R.A. (1996), “Latent variable interaction and quadratic effect estimation: a two-step technique
using structural equation analysis”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 166-175.
Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2004), “SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models”, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, Vol. 36
No. 4, pp. 717-731.
Rigdon, E.E., Becker, J.-M. and Sarstedt, M. (2019), “Factor indeterminacy as metrological uncertainty: Review of
implications for advancing psychological measurement”, Multivariate Behavioral Research,
Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 429-443. moderation
Rigdon, E.E., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M. and Gudergan, S.P. (2011), “Assessing heterogeneity in analysis in
customer satisfaction studies: across industry similarities and within industry differences”, tourism
in Sarstedt, M., Schwaiger, M and Taylor, C.R, (Eds), Measurement and Research Methods in
International Marketing, Advances in International Marketing, Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, pp. 169-194.
Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), “Gain more insight from your PLS-SEM results”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 9, pp. 1865-1886.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.-M. (2015), “SmartPLS 3”, SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt,
available at: www.smartpls.com
Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F., Nitzl, C., Ringle, C.M. and Howard, M.C. (2020), “Beyond a tandem analysis of
SEM and PROCESS: use of PLS-SEM for mediation analyses!”, International Journal of Market
Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 288-299.
Sarstedt, M., Henseler, J. and Ringle, C.M. (2011), “Multigroup analysis in partial least squares (PLS)
path modeling: alternative methods and empirical results”, in Sarstedt, M., Schwaiger, M. and
Taylor, C.R. (Eds), Measurement and Research Methods in International Marketing (Advances in
International Marketing, Vol. 22), Emerald, Bingley, pp. 195-218.
Steenkamp, J.B.E.M. and Baumgartner, H. (1998), “Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national
consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 78-90.
Steinmetz, H., Davidov, E. and Schmidt, P. (2011), “Three approaches to estimate latent interaction
effects: intention and perceived behavioral control in the theory of planned behavior”,
Methodological Innovations Online, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 95-110.
Taheri, B., Bititci, U., Gannon, M.J. and Cordina, R. (2019), “Investigating the influence of performance
measurement on learning, entrepreneurial orientation and performance in turbulent markets”,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 1224-1246.
Truong, D., Xiaoming Liu, R. and Yu, J. (2020), “Mixed methods research in tourism and hospitality
journals”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 4,
pp. 1563-1579.
Vandenberg, R.J. and Lance, C.E. (2000), “A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance
literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 4-70.

Corresponding author
Mingzhuo Wang can be contacted at: wmingzhuo@126.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com