| Literature DB >> 35432064 |
Shanshan Li1, Chenyu Liu2, Zhusheng Wu1, Ying Ma3, Baoxia Chen1, Shiying Gao1, Zichao Chen1, Shuang Xin4.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has influenced the tourism industry in various ways, including tourists' travel motivations and intentions. Unlike previous studies that have focused on the dark side of the pandemic, this study adds the dimension of perceptions of positive information on COVID-19 to the Theory of Planned Behavior to explore their influence on travel motivation and intention. A total of 470 valid questionnaires were collected from a sample of Chinese university students. The results showed that the students' perceptions of positive COVID-19 information positively impacted their travel intentions through the variables of perceived behavioral control, travel attitudes, and travel motivations. Perceived behavioral control was the mediating variable that most explained the impact of perceptions of positive COVID-19 information on travel motivation and intention. This study contributes to the understanding of the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on tourism and of university students' travel motivations and intentions. It also offers implications for the tourism industry to formulate relevant recovery strategies during and after the pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19 pandemic; theory of planned behavior; travel intention; travel motivation; university students
Year: 2022 PMID: 35432064 PMCID: PMC9008760 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.871330
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Research variables of the survey.
| Variable | Indicator |
|---|---|
| Travel Attitude ( | 1. I think proper travel during the pandemic is acceptable. |
| COVID-19 positive information perception | 1. Tourism policy information during the pandemic would affect my participation in travel. |
| 2. The school’s relevant regulations during the pandemic would affect my participation in travel. | |
| 3. The pandemic risk level at the destination would affect my participation in travel. | |
| 4. The medical and health conditions at the destination would affect my participation in travel. | |
| 5. The tourist traffic recovery during the pandemic would affect my participation in travel. | |
| 6. The local tourism service during the pandemic would affect my participation in travel. | |
| 7. Online public opinions during the pandemic would affect my participation in travel. | |
| Tourism motivation ( | 1. I want to travel to ease the negative emotions brought about by the pandemic. |
| Perceived behavioral control ( | 1. I have enough time to travel during the pandemic. |
| Travel intention ( | 1. I will travel after the ban (in my home city) is lifted. |
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Descriptive statistics (N = 470).
| Measure | Item | Count | % | Measure | Item | Count | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 214 | 45.5 | Location risk level | Low risk | 447 | 95.1 |
| Female | 256 | 54.5 | Medium risk | 17 | 3.6 | ||
| Grade | Freshman | 59 | 12.6 | High risk | 6 | 1.3 | |
| Sophomore | 135 | 28.7 | Preferred travel modes | Self-guided tour | 236 | 50.2 | |
| Junior | 74 | 15.7 | self-driving tour | 192 | 40.9 | ||
| Senior | 52 | 11.1 | Package tour | 36 | 7.7 | ||
| Master and above | 150 | 31.9 | A half package tour | 6 | 1.3 |
Measurement model.
| Construct Research | Code item | Parameter significance estimate | Reliability of item | Composite reliability | Average variance extracted | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unsted. | S.E. | Z-Value | P | std. | SMC | CR | AVE | |||
| ATT | ATT1 | ATT | 1 | 0.786 |
|
|
| |||
| ATT2 | ATT | 1.17 | 0.056 | 20.778 |
| 0.879 |
| |||
| ATT4 | ATT | 1.193 | 0.06 | 19.735 |
| 0.841 |
| |||
| ATT5 | ATT | 1.002 | 0.057 | 17.547 |
| 0.764 |
| |||
| IP | IP7 | IP | 1 | 0.606 |
|
|
| |||
| IP6 | IP | 1.172 | 0.087 | 13.432 |
| 0.809 |
| |||
| IP5 | IP | 1.216 | 0.089 | 13.615 |
| 0.828 |
| |||
| IP4 | IP | 1.103 | 0.088 | 12.503 |
| 0.727 |
| |||
| IP3 | IP | 1.003 | 0.079 | 12.684 |
| 0.742 |
| |||
| IP2 | IP | 0.964 | 0.088 | 11.008 |
| 0.611 |
| |||
| IP1 | IP | 1.029 | 0.088 | 11.72 |
| 0.664 |
| |||
| MT | MT3 | MT | 1 | 0.639 |
|
|
| |||
| MT2 | MT | 1.454 | 0.091 | 16.027 |
| 0.925 |
| |||
| MT1 | MT | 1.412 | 0.089 | 15.943 |
| 0.912 |
| |||
| PBC | PBC1 | PBC | 1 | 0.808 |
|
|
| |||
| PBC2 | PBC | 1.08 | 0.048 | 22.317 |
| 0.929 |
| |||
| PBC3 | PBC | 0.905 | 0.046 | 19.87 |
| 0.814 |
| |||
| TI | TI1 | TI | 1 | 0.862 |
|
|
| |||
| TI2 | TI | 0.974 | 0.042 | 22.97 |
| 0.863 |
| |||
| TI3 | TI | 0.794 | 0.043 | 18.646 |
| 0.747 |
| |||
| TI4 | TI | 0.784 | 0.043 | 18.378 |
| 0.739 |
| |||
P < 0.001 (the same below). Bold values of SMC, CR and AVE are corresponding to Squared Multiple Correlation, Construct Reliability and Average Variance Extracted.
Discriminatory validity.
| Dimension | Average variance extracted | Pearson correlation and discriminatory validity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AVE | MT | ATT | TI | PBC | IP | |
| MT | 0.648 |
| ||||
| ATT | 0.726 | 0.728 |
| |||
| TI | 0.699 | 0.616 | 0.612 |
| ||
| PBC | 0.670 | 0.448 | 0.485 | 0.573 |
| |
| IP | 0.514 | 0.247 | 0.194 | 0.124 | 0.257 |
|
Bold values on the diagonal are the square root values of the extracted average variance.
Index table of SEM model fitness.
| Model fitting degree | Standard | Actual fitting degree of model | Model fitting judgment |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| As small as possible | 631.772 | Reach standard |
| df | As small as possible | 182 | Reach standard |
| Normed Chi-sqr( | 1 < | 3.471 | Reach standard |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.073 | Reach standard |
| TLI(NNFI) | >0.9 | 0.916 | Reach standard |
| CFI | >0.9 | 0.927 | Reach standard |
| IFI | >0.9 | 0.928 | Reach standard |
Figure 2Measurement and structural model analysis.
Outcomes of structural equation modeling analysis (N = 470).
| Hypothesis | Path | Path coefficient ( | S.E. | C.R. | P | Supported? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H1 | IP --- > PBC | 0.260 | 0.081 | 4.900 |
| Yes |
| H2 | PBC --- > ATT | 0.200 | 0.040 | 4.559 |
| Yes |
| H3 | PBC --- > TI | 0.320 | 0.052 | 6.778 |
| Yes |
| H4 | PBC --- > MT | 0.450 | 0.044 | 8.266 |
| Yes |
| H5 | ATT --- > TI | 0.240 | 0.079 | 3.680 |
| Yes |
| H6 | MT --- > TI | 0.300 | 0.088 | 4.583 |
| Yes |
P < 0.001.
Intermediary effect test table.
| Relationships | Point estimate | Product of coefficient | Bootstrap 1,000 times 95%CI | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bias-corrected | Percentile | P | ||||||
| SE | Z | Lower | Upper | Lower | Upper | |||
| Indirect effects | ||||||||
| IP → PBC → TI | 0.108 | 0.027 | 4 | 0.061 | 0.172 | 0.058 | 0.167 | 0.000 |
| IP → PBC → ATT → TI | 0.016 | 0.008 | 2 | 0.005 | 0.040 | 0.003 | 0.035 | 0.007 |
| IP → PBC → MT → TI | 0.045 | 0.020 | 2.25 | 0.017 | 0.096 | 0.015 | 0.091 | 0.000 |
| IP → PBC → MT → ATT → TI | 0.023 | 0.010 | 2.3 | 0.008 | 0.051 | 0.006 | 0.046 | 0.007 |
| Total Indirect Effects | 0.192 | 0.046 | 4.17 | 0.107 | 0.290 | 0.106 | 0.286 | 0.000 |
| Contrasts | ||||||||
| PBC vs. ATT | 0.092 | 0.027 | 3.41 | 0.046 | 0.156 | 0.043 | 0.151 | 0.000 |
| PBC vs. MT | 0.063 | 0.026 | 2.42 | 0.018 | 0.122 | 0.013 | 0.114 | 0.014 |
| PBC vs. MT-ATT | 0.085 | 0.027 | 3.15 | 0.041 | 0.148 | 0.037 | 0.143 | 0.000 |
| ATT vs. MT | −0.029 | 0.022 | −1.32 | −0.083 | 0.005 | −0.080 | 0.007 | 0.096 |
| ATT vs. MT-ATT | −0.007 | 0.007 | −1 | −0.030 | 0.002 | −0.025 | 0.005 | 0.266 |
| MT vs. MT-ATT | 0.022 | 0.022 | 1 | −0.013 | 0.076 | −0.014 | 0.071 | 0.203 |