| Literature DB >> 35755454 |
Marion Garaus1, Melánia Hudáková1.
Abstract
Travel restrictions as well as travellers' increased risk perceptions have changed travel patterns around the globe during the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, the aviation industry has been particularly affected by the changing environment. Several airlines have reacted to travellers' rising concerns about becoming infected with the COVID-19 disease by introducing safety measures to guarantee a safe journey. Although research has noted the relevance of good communication during crises, the impact of communicating safety measures by rational (safety) advertising appeals on air travel intention has not been explored thus far. The current study investigates consumers' reactions to two different types of advertising appeals during the COVID-19 pandemic and their effect on air travel intentions and airline recommendation intentions. An online experiment reveals that travellers react more positively to safety as compared to emotional advertising appeals during the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the results confirm the hypothesized mediating effect of perceived health risk and trust in the airline on the impact of safety appeals in terms of air travel intention and airline recommendation. The results of this study uncover the underlying mechanisms that have driven consumers' air travel intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer various theoretical and managerial implications.Entities:
Keywords: Air travel; Air travel intention; COVID-19 pandemic; Perceived risk; Trust in the airline
Year: 2022 PMID: 35755454 PMCID: PMC9212763 DOI: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2022.102249
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Air Transp Manag ISSN: 0969-6997
Fig. 1Conceptual research framework.
Participants’ profile.
| Variable | Informational appeal N = 109 | Emotional Appeal N = 109 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 44% | 33% | 38.5% |
| Female | 55% | 66% | 60.5% |
| Prefer not to say | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Age (mean and standard deviation) | 34 years | 32 years | 33 years |
| Age distribution | |||
| 18–34 years | 38% | 39% | 38% |
| 25–34 years | 20% | 30% | 25% |
| 35–44 years | 17% | 16% | 17% |
| 45–54 years | 12% | 10% | 11% |
| 55–64 years | 12% | 4% | 8% |
| ≥65 years | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Highest education | |||
| University | 61% | 58% | 59% |
| High School | 34% | 40% | 36% |
| Vocational School | 8% | 1% | 4% |
| Compulsory Schooling | 1% | 1% | 1% |
| Frequency of travel in the last year | 2.08 | 1.6 | 1.9 |
| Frequency of travel per year in normal times (not in COVID-19 times) | 4.88 | 4.9 | 4.8 |
| Travel experience with Emirates Airlines | |||
| Yes | 39% | 50% | 45% |
| No | 61% | 50% | 55% |
Measurement of constructs.
| Constructs/items | Cronbach's alpha |
|---|---|
| The content was informative. | NA |
| The content was emotional. | |
| In the current situation, travelling with this airline could endanger my health. | .91 |
| In the current situation, travelling with this airline would be harmful to health. | |
| In the current situation, it would not be safe to travel with this airline. | |
| The information offered by the company is sincere and honest. | .92 |
| In general, the company fulfills its commitments. | |
| The company is concerned about its customers' needs. | |
| The company has the resources and experience to do its job well. | |
| I would say positive things to other people about this airline. | .94 |
| I would recommend this airline to anyone who asked my opinion. | |
| It is likely that I would encourage my friends and acquaintances to fly with this airline. | |
| I will consider this airline when I intend to fly in the future. | .86 |
| It is likely that I will use this airline in the near future. | |
| I expect to fly with this airline in the future. | |
Manipulation check and hypotheses testing.
| Consequence | Emotional appeal | Rational appeal | Difference | Effect size ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M | SD | M | SD | |||||
| The content was … | ||||||||
| … informative | 3.13 | (1.63) | 6.09 | (1.09) | 2.96 | 250.12 | <.001 | .54 |
| … emotional | 5.74 | (1.29) | 3.45 | (1.72) | 2.29 | 123.41 | <.001 | .36 |
| Perceived health risk ( | 3.54 | (1.60) | 2.73 | (1.37) | 0.81 | 17.2 | <.001 | .07 |
| Trust in the airline ( | 4.97 | (1.17) | 5.92 | (.93) | 0.95 | 44.9 | <.001 | .17 |
Fig. 2Mean comparisons for perceived health risk and trust in the airline between emotional and safety advertising appeal conditions.
Results of mediation analysis.
| Variable | M1 Perceived health risk | M2 Trust in the airline | Y1 Travel intention | Y2 Airline Recommendation | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coeff. (SE) | Coeff. (SE) | Coeff. (SE) | Coeff. (SE) | ||||||||||||
| Safety appeal | -.84 (.20) | <.01 | .79 (.14) | <.01 | -.38 (.15) | .01 | -.01 (.15) | .95 | |||||||
| Perceived health risk (M1) | -.21 (.05) | <.01 | -.18 (.05) | <.01 | -.12 (.05) | .01 | |||||||||
| Trust in the airline (M2) | .63 (.07) | <.01 | .71 (.07) | <.01 | |||||||||||
| Prior experience (Cov) | .27 (.20) | .19 | -.06 (.14) | .69 | -.38 (.14) | .01 | -.63 (.14) | <.01 | |||||||
| Total effect | .38 (.17) | .04 | .78 (.18) | <.01 | |||||||||||
| Constant | 3.98 (.43) | <.01 | 4.99 (.34) | <.01 | 3.52 (.48) | <.01 | 2.64 (.48) | <.01 | |||||||
| Coeff. | CI [95%] | ||||||||||||||
| Safety appeal-- > Perceived health risk → Travel intention | .15 | [.05, .29] | |||||||||||||
| Safety appeal-- > Trust in the airline → Travel intention | .50 | [.30, .72] | |||||||||||||
| Safety appeal-- > Perceived health risk → Trust in the airline → Travel intention | .11 | [.05, .19] | |||||||||||||
| Safety appeal-- > Perceived health risk → Recommendation | .10 | [.01, .23] | |||||||||||||
| Safety appeal-- > Trust in the airline → Recommendation | .56 | [.36, .79] | |||||||||||||
| Safety appeal-- > Perceived health risk-- > Trust in the airline → Recommendation | .12 | [.05, .22] | |||||||||||||