| Literature DB >> 35126243 |
Ke Shen1, Jian Yang2, Chuan Geng3.
Abstract
Although sufficient attention has been paid to residents' attitudes to tourism in previous studies, few studies have used residents' attitudes to tourists and tourism simultaneously to explain their support for tourism. This study fills this gap by examining the effect of place image and host-tourist interactions on residents' attitudes to tourists and tourism, respectively, and their consequent reactions by considering the moderating effect of Chinese traditionality. The proposed model is tested using data from 357 residents living in Huangshan, a fifth-tier city in China. Results demonstrate that attitudes to tourism and host-tourists interaction positively affect their pro-tourism behaviours. Moreover, attitudes to tourism mediate place the image's, host-tourists interaction's and attitudes to tourists' respective relationships with pro-tourism behaviours. Furthermore, the higher the Chinese traditionality of residents, the stronger the influence of their attitudes to tourism on pro-tourism behaviours. However, the relationship of place image and attitudes of residents towards tourists with pro-tourism behaviours are not supported. Findings offer critical implications for planners, practitioners and interested researchers.Entities:
Keywords: Chinese traditionality; attitudes to tourism; attitudes to tourist; host-tourist interaction; place image; pro-tourism behaviours
Year: 2022 PMID: 35126243 PMCID: PMC8814582 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.792324
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Research model with relevant hypotheses.
Socio-demographic information of respondents.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 163 | 45.7% |
| Female | 194 | 54.3% |
|
| ||
| Single | 105 | 29.4% |
| Married | 251 | 70.3% |
| Others | 1 | 0.3% |
|
| ||
| 18–25 | 78 | 21.8% |
| 26–35 | 148 | 41.5% |
| 36–45 | 75 | 21.0% |
| ≥46 | 56 | 15.6% |
|
| ||
| Middle school or less | 69 | 19.3% |
| Junior college | 94 | 26.3% |
| Undergraduate | 163 | 45.7% |
| Post-graduate or higher | 31 | 8.7% |
|
| ||
| Government agent | 68 | 19.0% |
| Self-employed or Freelancer | 78 | 21.9% |
| Student | 51 | 14.3% |
| Office worker | 160 | 44.8% |
|
| ||
| ≤ ¥4,000 | 75 | 21.0% |
| ¥4,001–6,000 | 100 | 28.0% |
| ¥6,001–8,000 | 67 | 18.8% |
| ¥8,001–10,000 | 71 | 19.9% |
| ≥¥10,001 | 44 | 12.3% |
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.919 | 0.943 | 0.805 | |
| ATT1 | 0.905 | |||
| ATT2 | 0.893 | |||
| ATT3 | 0.915 | |||
| ATT4 | 0.876 | |||
|
| 0.937 | 0.955 | 0.840 | |
| ATTT1 | 0.936 | |||
| ATTT2 | 0.920 | |||
| ATTT3 | 0.902 | |||
| ATTT4 | 0.908 | |||
|
| 0.930 | 0.956 | 0.878 | |
| HTI1 | 0.931 | |||
| HTI2 | 0.969 | |||
| HTI3 | 0.910 | |||
|
| 0.933 | 0.957 | 0.881 | |
| CS1 | 0.942 | |||
| CS2 | 0.936 | |||
| CS3 | 0.938 | |||
|
| 0.925 | 0.953 | 0.870 | |
| ES1 | 0.912 | |||
| ES2 | 0.908 | |||
| ES3 | 0.977 | |||
|
| 0.895 | 0.935 | 0.829 | |
| SE1 | 0.879 | |||
| SE2 | 0.975 | |||
| SE3 | 0.874 | |||
|
| 0.881 | 0.918 | 0.737 | |
| PHA1 | 0.821 | |||
| PHA2 | 0.878 | |||
| PHA3 | 0.876 | |||
| PHA4 | 0.856 | |||
|
| 0.941 | 0.949 | 0.588 | |
| Entertainment services | 0.815 | |||
| Social environment | 0.835 | |||
| Physical appearance | 0.871 | |||
| Community services | 0.858 | |||
|
| 0.921 | 0.944 | 0.808 | |
| PBI1 | 0.898 | |||
| PBI2 | 0.960 | |||
| PBI3 | 0.853 | |||
| PBI4 | 0.881 | |||
|
| 0.882 | 0.913 | 0.679 | |
| CT1 | 0.778 | |||
| CT2 | 0.913 | |||
| CT3 | 0.801 | |||
| CT4 | 0.725 | |||
| CT5 | 0.887 |
CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted.
Correlations, AVE values, and HTMT ratios.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATT |
| 0.747 | 0.673 | 0.574 | 0.027 | 0.529 | 0.699 | 0.696 | 0.584 |
| ATTT | 0.696 |
| 0.610 | 0.684 | 0.063 | 0.609 | 0.795 | 0.736 | 0.599 |
| PBI | 0.627 | 0.577 |
| 0.470 | 0.092 | 0.429 | 0.623 | 0.505 | 0.524 |
| CS | 0.535 | 0.640 | 0.443 |
| 0.045 | 0.664 | 0.628 | 0.728 | 0.676 |
| CT | −0.016 | −0.062 | −0.092 | −0.038 |
| 0.035 | 0.030 | 0.066 | 0.024 |
| ES | 0.492 | 0.570 | 0.399 | 0.617 | −0.015 |
| 0.647 | 0.641 | 0.642 |
| HTI | 0.648 | 0.745 | 0.582 | 0.585 | −0.031 | 0.601 |
| 0.720 | 0.653 |
| PHA | 0.626 | 0.669 | 0.458 | 0.663 | −0.051 | 0.586 | 0.654 |
| 0.724 |
| SE | 0.532 | 0.553 | 0.480 | 0.620 | −0.012 | 0.588 | 0.598 | 0.645 |
|
The square root of AVE is shown on the diagonal. Correlations across variables are below the diagonal, while HTMT ratios are above the diagonal.
Results of hypotheses testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | ATT → PBI | 0.366 | 0.066 | 5.580 | 0.000 | YES |
| H2 | ATTT → PBI | 0.134 | 0.088 | 1.529 | 0.126 | NO |
| H3 | ATTT → ATT | 0.380 | 0.063 | 6.003 | 0.000 | YES |
| H3a | ATTT → ATT → PBI | 0.139 | 0.035 | 4.024 | 0.000 | YES |
| H4 | HTI → ATT | 0.196 | 0.077 | 2.563 | 0.010 | YES |
| H5 | HTI → ATTT | 0.465 | 0.061 | 7.679 | 0.000 | YES |
| H6 | HTI → PBI | 0.218 | 0.070 | 3.130 | 0.002 | YES |
| H6a | HTI → ATT → PBI | 0.072 | 0.029 | 2.475 | 0.013 | YES |
| H7 | PI → ATTT | 0.387 | 0.055 | 7.062 | 0.000 | YES |
| H8 | PI → ATT | 0.234 | 0.075 | 3.116 | 0.002 | YES |
| H9 | PI → PBI | 0.011 | 0.073 | 0.153 | 0.878 | NO |
| H9a | PI → ATT → PBI | 0.086 | 0.034 | 2.537 | 0.011 | YES |
| H10 | CT*ATT → PBI | 0.176 | 0.066 | 2.668 | 0.008 | YES |
| H11 | CT*ATTT → PBI | −0.040 | 0.054 | 0.735 | 0.462 | NO |
Figure 2Moderating effect of CT.