How it occurred: As the researcher, I had pre-existing assumptions that customers traveling in the mid-price segment prioritize safety and avoiding unexpected costs. During the interviews, some respondents might have focused on these aspects because I asked about them more frequently, expecting these to be the answers I was looking for.
Impact on respondents: Some respondents might have provided answers that aligned with my assumptions, even if their personal preferences differed. They could have subconsciously overlooked other important aspects, such as the desire for more personalized trips, adventure, or unique experiences. As a result, the findings might have been limited, potentially neglecting niche market opportunities.

How it occurred: Respondents primarily recalled experiences that were the most emotionally significant or memorable to them—both positive and negative. They were less likely to remember neutral situations or those that went as expected.
Impact on respondents: Participants might have focused on extreme examples from their trips, such as particularly disastrous vacations with accommodation issues or incredibly successful trips with ideal service. This bias affects how they signal everyday service quality, which may be more representative. As a result, I might have focused too heavily on rare problems rather than addressing issues that affect a broader group of customers.

How it occurred: During the interviews, some respondents might have given answers that they thought were more socially acceptable or aligned with what they believed I wanted to hear. Instead of sharing their real negative experiences with the travel agency, they might have leaned toward more neutral or positive responses to avoid seeming overly critical or dissatisfied.
Impact on respondents: Some participants may have avoided expressing frustration with problems they encountered during their trips (e.g., long wait times for customer service responses or hidden fees), fearing they might be perceived as too demanding. As a result, the research findings could reflect a more positive reality than the respondents’ true experiences.

How it occurred: The recruited sample mainly consisted of people who regularly use all-inclusive travel packages. There was a lack of participants who prefer other forms of travel, such as self-planned trips, more personalized experiences, or thematic tours.
Impact on respondents: The dominance of all-inclusive users caused the study results to indicate a preference for this type of offer. Meanwhile, respondents might have unintentionally ignored other available options on the market or expressed preferences that were more aligned with the majority profile. This may have narrowed the scope of findings and caused me to overlook the needs of customers seeking more non-standard trips.

How it occurred: When respondents had positive experiences with one element of their trip, such as excellent customer service, they might have automatically rated other aspects of the trip as better, even if those aspects were not actually of the same quality.
Impact on respondents: Some respondents might have downplayed the importance of issues related to booking or unclear cost information because their overall positive vacation experience overshadowed those less favorable aspects. This could have led to overly positive evaluations in the study, resulting in a distorted picture of reality.