. 2006 Feb 2;28(1):188–203. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2005.11.012

Table 7.

Results of Granger causality tests between monthly LIP and LSPI: Taiwan

Company	Causality	Wald test statistic		t-statistic	Result
Company	Causality	λ₁	β₂	θ
Ambassador Hotel	$Δ LSPI \Rightarrow Δ LIP$	0.32	—	−1.88^*	$Δ LSPI \Leftrightarrow Δ LIP$
	$Δ LIP \Rightarrow Δ LSPI$	—	1.85	−2.32^**
First Hotel	$Δ LSPI \Rightarrow Δ LIP$	1.38	—	—	$Δ LSPI < \neq > Δ LIP$
	$Δ LIP \Rightarrow Δ LSPI$	—	1.07	—
Hotel Holiday Garden	$Δ LSPI \Rightarrow Δ LIP$	0.08	—	−2.49^**	$Δ LSPI \Leftrightarrow Δ LIP$
	$Δ LIP \Rightarrow Δ LSPI$	0.08	0.04	−3.47^***
Leofoo Corporation	$Δ LSPI \Rightarrow Δ LIP$	5.27^*	—	−1.62	$Δ LSPI \Leftrightarrow Δ LIP$
	$Δ LIP \Rightarrow Δ LSPI$	—	8.56^**	−3.93^***
Wan-Hwa Corporation	$Δ LSPI \Rightarrow Δ LIP$	0.23	—	−2.12^**	$Δ LSPI \Leftrightarrow Δ LIP$
	$Δ LIP \Rightarrow Δ LSPI$	—	2.45	−3.45^***
China Airlines	$Δ LSPI \Rightarrow Δ LIP$	1.68	—	−1.92^**	$Δ LSPI \Leftrightarrow Δ LIP$
	$Δ LIP \Rightarrow Δ LSPI$	—	2.29	−3.82^***
VWTI (full sample)	$Δ LSPI \Rightarrow Δ LIP$	4.38	—	−2.81^**	$Δ LSPI \Leftrightarrow Δ LIP$
	$Δ LIP \Rightarrow Δ LSPI$	—	0.27	−1.90^*
VWTI (1/1998–9/2003)	$Δ LSPI \Rightarrow Δ LIP$	3.27	—	−2.73^**	$Δ LSPI \Leftrightarrow Δ LIP$
	$Δ LIP \Rightarrow Δ LSPI$	—	0.53	−1.83^*

Note: The symbols (^*), (^**), and (^***) indicate significance at the 10%, 5% and 1% levels, respectively.