Relationships between secure attachment, experiential co-creation and future experiential intentions in the tourism industry: The case of COVID-19

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-34557/v1

Download PDF

Relationships between secure attachment, experiential co-creation and future experiential intentions in the tourism industry: The case of COVID-19

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-34557/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

This paper aims to explore the relationships between the dimensions of secure attachment, the dimensions of experiential co-creation and future experiential intentions. A convenience sample of 505 tourists who had traveled by domestic or international airlines during the COVID-19 outbreak in Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport was surveyed. The results will assist tourism operators in developing and implementing market-orientated service strategies to increase secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect, secure social bonding, experiential trust, experiential commitment and experiential connection in order to enable tourists to have future intentions to experience the destination during the COVID-19 outbreak.

Marketing

Hospitality and Tourism

Tourists

Secure attachment

Experiential co-creation

Future experiential intentions

COVID-19

Since December 2019, many gathered cases of “unknown viral pneumonia” have been reported, initially linked to exposure at the Huanan Seafood Market, Wuhan, China (Huang et al., 2020). A novel coronavirus was detected, capable of infecting humans, on 6 January 2020 (Li et al., 2020; Zhu et al., 2020) and termed 2019-nCoV (COVID–19). COVID–19 has changed the world forever in every imaginable respect and has impacted heavily on international travel, tourism demand, and tourism industry, which is one of the world’s largest employers and is highly sensitive to significant shocks like the COVID–19 pandemic (Chang, McAleer, & Ramos, 2020). With the COVID–19 cases rising significantly every day around the world, many tourists may worry about their holiday plans. Some of their concerns include if the destination they are traveling to may be affected and unsafe to travel, or if the situation will turn for the better a month or two down the road (Trip 101, 2000). According to the Luxury Travel Expert (2020), travel restrictions are being imposed around the world because of the COVID–19 outbreak, and the situation changes daily. This is probably the single one reason why tourists may want to postpone their travel plans since none of them can predict what the situation will be in the coming weeks. Oppermann (2000) suggests that tourists’ past experience influences their future travel choice and more specifically, their destination choice through behavioral lens. Experiential intentions of tourists are a predictor of profitability and revenue generation of tourism organizations (Bødker & Browning, 2012; Wu & Li, 2017). Traveling is not only good for the soul but also good for health. Accordingly, people need to be more careful than usual to travel safely during the COVID–19 outbreak (Oh My Good Guide, 2020). During this COVID–19 pandemic, the safety and security situation in countries can change rapidly and without warning, from significant fines for tourists breaching curfews, to hostility experienced towards foreigners (World Travel & Tourism Council, 2020). As the COVID–19 situation evolves, many people around the world continue to travel: for leisure, for business and for vital humanitarian reasons (The World Tourism Organization, 2020). According to the World Tourism Organization (2020), there are three ways for tourists to keep safe while traveling in a destination. First, the best way to stay safe while traveling is to follow the latest World Health Organization guidelines as closely as possible. Second, tourists are required to wash hands regularly and thoroughly, avoid shaking hands or touching faces, try and stay away from crowded places. Third, where possible, tourists are required to maintain at least one meter between themselves and others. To understand whether tourists travel in a destination with high safety and security during the COVID–19 outbreak, there is a need to predict their future experiential intentions.

Place attachment is a term that refers to a complex emotional and psychological relationship between people and their environments, although it has been defined in many different ways, such as in relation to sense of place, place bonding and place identity (Hernandez, Hidalgo, & Ruiz, 2014; Walker & Ryan, 2008). It is a multi-dimensional construct comprising place identity, place dependence, place affect and place social bonding (Ramkissoon, Smith, & Weiler, 2013a). It is generally believed that place attachment provides individuals with many benefits, such as fostering greater human resilience towards environmental risks (Mishra, Mazumdar, & Suar, 2010), improving perceived quality of life (Manzo, 2008), and increasing social well-being (Rollero & De Piccoli, 2010a). In particular, place attachment may contribute to fostering individual, group and cultural self-esteem (Loures & Burley, 2012; Low & Altman, 1992) in a time of increased mobility, globalization, greater uniformity and loss of cultural specificity (Liu et al., 2018). Many tourists inquire if it is safe to travel during the COVID–19 outbreak. Gössling, Scott, and Hall (2020) propose that the COVID–19 pandemic is an unknowable risk. However, it is unsure that traveling during the COVID–19 outbreak is entirely risk-free, regardless of ages, health or tourist destinations (Lociamica, 2020; Schengen Visa Info, 2020). As the travel situation regarding the COVID–19 pandemic is rapidly changing from day to day, tourists need to know the most recent safety and security situation of destinations by consulting the website of the government in a country (The Luxury Travel Expert, 2020). According to the Ainsworth (1989) and Korstanje (2011) research on attachment theory, tourists who perceive their primary travel safety and security to be secure, are likely to develop secure attachment. However, based on the existing literature, very few studies focus on applying the dimensions of place attachment in the measurement of the dimensions of secure attachment (secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding) in the tourism industry.

In the tourism context, the concept of co-creation is particularly relevant. First, offering unique and memorable customer experiences are of paramount importance for tourism service providers in order to remain competitive. Creating a unique experience involves both customer participation and a connection which link the customer to the experience (Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Shaw, Bailey, & Williams, 2011). Several researchers (Prahalad, 2004; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996) present that co-creation may add a dimension to trust and commitment that better explains the firm-customer connection. Therefore, Randall, Gravier, and Prybutok (2011) find that co-creation is a multi-dimensional construct comprising trust, commitment and connection. Wu and Cheng (2020) maintain that experiential co-creation is the sum of the psychological events a tourist goes through when contributing actively through physical and/or mental participation in activities. To the best of our knowledge, none of the studies examines whether experiential co-creation comprises experiential trust, experiential commitment and experiential connection in the tourism industry.

Wu and Cheng (2018) find that experiential trust is positively influenced by the dimensions of technology attachment. Several studies (Gil‐Saura, Frasquet‐Deltoro, & Cervera‐Taulet, 2009; Moliner, Sánchez, Rodríguez, & Callarisa, 2007; Morgan & Hunt, 1994) propose that trust is a precursor to commitment in a business-to-business exchange relationship. Randall et al. (2011) reveal that trust is a predictor of connection. In addition, they find that future intentions are influenced by trust, commitment and connection.

Although previous studies have paid great attention to examining the relevant issues of the dimensions of place attachment (place identity, place dependence, place affect and place social bonding), the dimensions of co-creation (trust, commitment and connection), and future intentions, very few studies focus on them from the tourists’ perspectives in the tourism industry (Wu & Chang, 2019, 2020; Wu & Cheng, 2018, 2020; Wu, Cheng, Ai, & Chen, 2019c; Wu, Cheng, Ai, & Wu, 2020). Berrada (2017) proposes that experiences designed for and by tourists are social constructions stemming from a continuous process of learning and creative collaboration between the various tourism stakeholders. A tourist experience is not only influenced by touchable products and experienced services, but also to the degree in which a specific experience is unforgettable and thus, memorable (Cornelisse, 2014). The global spread of COVID–19 is causing significant changes to the way tourists travel to keep attachment to the safety and security. Accordingly, this study attempts to fill the research gap and proposes eight new and novel constructs—the dimensions of secure attachment (secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding), the dimensions of experiential co-creation (experiential trust, experiential commitment and experiential connection), and future experiential intentions, as well as their relationships perceived by tourists visiting the destination during the COVID–19 outbreak.

This study contributes to the services and experiential marketing literature from theoretical and practical perspectives. From the theoretical perspective, this study proposes eight constructs—secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect, secure social bonding, experiential trust, experiential commitment, experiential connection and future experiential intentions. In addition, this paper provides a research framework to explore the relationships between these eight constructs. Moreover, it focuses on finding the correct standpoint and evaluation for novel and new concepts of marketing in the tourism industry to increase perceptions of future experiential intentions from seven drivers: secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect, secure social bonding, experiential trust, experiential commitment and experiential connection. From a managerial perspective, this study will benefit marketers and practitioners in the tourism industry and provide them with an opportunity to develop and implement services and experiential marketing strategies to ensure that high perceptions of secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding lead to increased perceptions of experiential trust, experiential commitment and experiential connection, which in turn, result in future experiential intentions.

2.1 Place attachment

Place attachment is defined as the development of affective bond or link between people or individuals and specific places (Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001) expressed through the interplay of affects and emotions, knowledge and beliefs, and behavior and actions (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983). It is also reflected in the functional bonding between people and places described as place dependence (Stokols & Shumaker, 1981). Williams, Patterson, Roggenbuck, and Watson (1992 present that place attachment is developed when a place is well-identified and felt significant by the users and able to provide condition to fulfill their functional needs and supports their behavioral goals better than a known alternative. Several researchers (Halpenny, 2010; Kyle, Graefe, & Manning, 2005; Moore & Graefe, 1994; Ramkissoon et al., 2013b; Williams & Vaske, 2003; Xu & Zhang, 2016) propose that place attachment is a multi-faceted concept. Place attachment comprises place identity (Kyle, Bricker, Graefe, & Wickham, 2004; Moore & Graefe, 1994; Vaske & Kobrin, 2001), place dependence (Vaske & Kobrin, 2001; Williams et al., 1992), place affect (Kals, Schumacher, & Montada, 1999; Ramkissoon et al., 2013b) and place social bonding (Hammitt, Kyle, & Oh, 2009; Scannell & Gifford, 2010). Place identity refers to the connection between a place and the personal identity of an individual (Kyle et al., 2004; Moore & Graefe, 1994). When tourists visit a certain location, their affective or symbolic meaning of that place evolves and their identification develops through their accumulated experiences in that place (Moore & Graefe, 1994; Williams et al., 1992). Place dependence depicts the suitability of a place in meeting an individual’s functional needs (Suntikul & Jachna, 2016). It is based on the physical features and conditions of a place (Prayag & Ryan, 2012). For example, golfers develop attachment to a golf course due to its attributes that facilitate the enjoyment of playing golf (Lee, Kyle, & Scott, 2012). Place affect refers to the emotional bonds individuals share with settings in a place (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001; Kals et al., 1999). Researchers have noted an affective attachment that individuals develop towards a place by constructing their emotions (Rollero & De Piccoli, 2010b), which go beyond cognition or judgments (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). Place social bonding describes the process that meaningful interpersonal relationships in a place enhance the sense of belonging to a group and the particular setting (Hammitt et al., 2009; Kyle et al., 2005). Researchers have pointed out that an individual’s experiences in the presence of significant others (e.g. family and close friends) within a place form a place-based social bonding (Scannell & Gifford, 2010).

2.2 Secure attachment

Secure attachment is defined as a positive view of self and others, with characteristics of having “a sense of self-worth and the confidence that others will be available and supportive, and have comfort seeking and expecting comfort from others” (Ponizovsky, Vitenberg, Baumgarten-Katz & Grinshpoon, p. 165, 2013). Alternatively, secure attachment is referred to as “the stable tendency of an individual to make substantial efforts to seek and maintain proximity to and contact with one or a few specific individuals who provide subjective potential for physical and/or psychological safety and security” (Berman & Sperling, 1994, p. 8). According to Bowlby (1980, p. 242), an individual who has experienced secure attachment “is likely to possess a representational model of attachment figures as being available, responsive and helpful.” Isa, Ariyanto, and Kiumarsi (2020) present that secure attachment results in improving the emotions and mental states of individuals in places, a factor which is positively connected to the heritage culture and community culture of places. Karsono, Indira, and Deni (2015) indicate that the security attributes in a place influence place attachment. Altman and Low (1992) propose that the typical security associated with places invites tourists to develop strong place attachment. According to Knez (2014), place-related attachment is in agreement with the Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, and Wall (1978) concept of secure attachment, includes a dimension of closeness/belonging (an emotional component of people-place bonding). As for some potential advantages of place attachment, Payton, Fulton, and Anderson (2005) suggest that secure attachment to a place can serve as a means of uniting individuals and groups for an environmental and social cause and altering their behavior, which explain why the residents of a specific location often come together to clean up their neighborhood. Scannell and Gifford (2017) propose that secure attachment to places and their people has been shown to improve satisfaction, a sense of control and an association with either a positive or negative affect. To the best of our knowledge, none of the studies focuses on secure attachment regarding tourists’ travel during the COVID–19 outbreak.

This study proposes the concept of secure attachment as a way to extend the scope of place attachment. Building on previous literature, this paper focuses on four components of secure attachment: secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding. First, secure identity is defined as that part of an individual’s personal identity based on the physical and symbolic features of the safety and security during the travel period (Baumeister & Dong, 2016; Proshansky et al., 1983). According to Baumeiste et al. (2016) and Breakwell (1992), secure identity process theory suggests that an individual absorbs information from the physical and/or psychological safety and security that are placed into preexisting mental structures, continuously adjusted and subsequently evaluated so as to attribute meanings to the new elements. Second, secure dependence is defined as how best the physical and/or psychological safety and security can provide travel experiences (Williams et al., 1992) and its relative quality compared to alternative physical and/or psychological safety and security (Halpenny, 2010). Secure dependence conceptually represents the conative domain and embodies the actions or behavioral tendencies of an individual regarding the physical and/or psychological safety and security during the travel period (Borden & Schettino, 1979). Third, secure affect refers to the emotions and feelings of an individual towards the physical and/or psychological safety and security during the travel period (Halpenny, 2010). Researchers have noted an affective attachment that individuals develop towards the physical and/or psychological safety and security by constructing their emotions (Rollero & De Piccoli, 2010b), which go beyond cognition or judgments (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). Fourth, secure social bonding is referred to as the interpersonal relationship that connects one person to another across time and space, which appear to be largely cognitive (JUNO, 2020; Ramkissoon, Weiler, & Smith, 2012). Secure social bonding measures how individuals are connected to the physical and/or psychological safety and security during the travel period in an active and social manner, reflecting the participation of individuals in local activities and how they feel about what the physical and/or psychological safety and security during the travel period have to offer in that respect (Candiotti, Zuberbühler, & Lemasson, 2012; Song & Soopramanien, 2019). Based on the aforementioned review, the dimensions of secure attachment (secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding) remain sparse in the tourism industry, particularly in the context of COVID–19.

2.3 Co-creation

Co-creation has been used to clarify current changes in the tourism supply chain (Räikkönen & Honkanen, 2013), analyze the overall destination experience (Zouni & Kouremenos, 2008), and study new approaches to marketing (Lichrou, O’Malley, & Patterson, 2008). It is defined as processes that entail interactions and collaboration between people, rather than just involvement and co-creativity. Since, value co-creation occurs in the customers’ realm, value co-creation models must take into consideration customers’ use processes and their relationship to the goals or objectives of the customers (Mukhtar, Ismail, & Yahya, 2012). Customers are now armed with new connective tools and desire to interact and co-create value (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Further, new age channels have enabled customer co-creation in tourism as well as other domains (Binkhorst & Dekker, 2009; Cabiddu, Lui, & Piccoli, 2013; Rihova, Buhalis, Gouthro, & Moital, 2018). In the tourism industry, a “system of social ruling is making way for communicative self-steering” (Binkhorst & Dekker, 2009, p. 311) and co-creation is becoming an increasingly popular source of differentiation (Turner & Shockley, 2014). Randall et al. (2011) propose that co-creation is a multi-dimensional concept which comprises trust, commitment and connection.

Trust is regarded as an essential key to maintaining continuity in the customer provider relationship (Chiu, Hsu, Lai, & Chang, 2012; Han & Hyun, 2013). Sirdeshmukh, Singh, and Sabol (2002) refer to trust as “expectations held by the consumer that the service provider is dependable and can be relied on to deliver on its promises” (p. 17). Alternatively, Doney and Cannon (1997, p. 36) define trust as “the perceived credibility and benevolence of a target of trust.” Trust plays a critical role in helping exchange relationships (Moorman, Deshpande, & Zaltman, 1993), differentiating between effective and ineffective sales relationships (Smith & Barclay, 1997), and satisfying customers’ expectation (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). The literature implies that trust is tourists’ confidence in a service transaction on the condition that they are satisfied with it and a willingness to support it by maintaining good relationships between customers and service providers (Song, Lee, Kim, Bendle, & Shin, 2014).

Commitment is an important variable in discriminating between stayers and leavers in business alliances (Mummalaneni, 1987). It is the desire to continue the relationship and to work to ensure its continuance. It implies importance of the relationship to the partners and a desire to continue the relationship into the future, assuming that the alliance will bring future value or benefits to the partners (Hardwick & Ford, 1986). Morgan and Hunt (1994) define commitment as an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts at maintaining it; namely, the committed party believes the relationship is worth working on to ensure that it endures indefinitely. Like trust, commitment is regarded an important factor in successful relations (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Berry (1995) contends that relationships in the services marketing area are built on the foundation of mutual commitment.

Connection is defined as the ease and effort in developing meaningful, quality relationships with others by exchanging thoughts and feelings and includes sociability and intimacy (Seal, Naumann, Scott, & Royce-Davis, 2011). Alternatively, it refers to the extent of formal linkage from one site to others. It is characterized according to the degree of linkage and the amount of information quoted from other sites: outsourced content, percent of home site content and pathways of connection (Lee & Benbasat, 2004). Randall et al. (2011) propose that connection focuses on measuring the degree of relational connectedness as the emotional attachment with both the service organization as well as with fellow customers of that organization. According to WordPress (2020), customers want a service provider who creates strong points of connection. A point of connection is defined as anytime the customer comes in contact with anything or anyone that has anything to do with his/her organization. A powerful point of connection creates a bond with customers and ensures a high level of trust.

2.4 Experiential co-creation

Co-creation is the coming together of two parties to jointly create value. The tourist interacts with the provider and his/her facilities in order to create value (Awuor, Hayombe, & Ayieko, 2015). By its very definition, the value involved is experiential value or alternatively value-in-use (Grönroos & Voima, 2013). In the context of tourism, for experiential co-creation to occur, it is essential that destinations and tourism service providers involve tourists in cooperatively working together with the aim of creating a better offering (Buonincontri, Morvillo, Okumus, & van Niekerk, 2017). In return, this enhances value for both the tourist and the destination (Grissemann & Stokburger-Sauer, 2012; Mathis, 2013). Previous studies have suggested that the degree of experiential co-creation is influenced by several factors. In particular, tourists’ interactions, their active participation in the experience and their attitudes on sharing the experience with others are identified as the antecedents of experiential co-creation (Green, 2002; Neuhofer, Buhalis, & Ladkin, 2012). Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2004) define experiential co-creation as the joint creation of value by the organization and the customers, allowing the customers to co-construct service experiences to suit their context. The benefit of experiential co-creation is related to the ability of customers and organizations to collaborate for the satisfaction and the expectations of both (Chathoth et al., 2014). According to Jaakkola, Helkkula, Aarikka-Stenroos, and Verleye (2015) and Randall et al. (2011), experiential co-creation is proposed to comprise experiential trust, experiential commitment and experiential connection.

Experiential trust is defined as the willingness of the average customer to rely on the ability of the experience to perform its stated functions (Chaudhuri & Holbrook, 2001; Wu, 2017). Kramer and Tyler (1996) show that experiential trust develops with knowledge of the one trusted over time, and identification-based trust is based on a sense of shared values. In general, experiential trust helps tourists feel control even in situations where the quality of service is hard to grasp (Leiphart & Barnes, 2005). Kramer and Tyler (1996) propose that experiential trust reproduces over time and through repetition. Wu (2017) and Wu, Chang, and Wu (2019a) identify that experiential trust has been increasingly playing an important role in the tourism industry.

Commitment is the attitudinal component of customer loyalty that is developed after an experience (or experiences) with a product and/or service is completed (Lariviere, Keiningham, Cooil, Aksoy, & Malthouse, 2014). It will not only be affected by customer experience but also vice versa (for repeated customer-provider interactions). Specifically, a customer’s commitment to a product and/or service biases his/her perceptions of the experience through dynamics such as cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957), self-perception (Bem, 1967) and biased scanning (Janis & King, 1954). Experiential commitment is defined as feelings of personal involvement with the phenomena in a cathetic and communicative sense (Wimberley, 1978). Likewise, it is the emotional reaction tourists experience when they are communicating with destinations, or the transcendent force of their particular destination (Wu & Chang, 2019; Wu & Cheng, 2018). The parties in the relationship identify experiential commitment as the key endeavor to develop and maintain their relationship (Cai & Wheale, 2004).

Connection is a very personal experience. What is connection for one person may not be for another. Connection can be related to people, art, landscapes and houses. It can also flow strongly or meander peacefully. In addition, it can be seasonal with different characteristics that bring their own values (Learning About Dogs Ltd, 2020). According to Schmitt, Brakus, and Zarantonello (2015) and van der Westhuizen (2018), customers may describe the experience associated with services and/or products through relationships, thus demonstrating the relationship between connection and product and/or service experiences, although previously unexplored. Duchon and Plowman (2005) and Petchsawang and Duchon (2009) refer to experiential connection as one’s experience of a deep sense of connection with other people and their work, implying that one feels part of the community and can identify him/herself with the group’s common purpose. Connectivity is a unique way of knowing that emerges from an experiential connection to products and/or services and a virtual connection to others with the same product and/or service (Barker & Galardi, 2011).

2.5 Future experiential intentions

According to Lee, Huh, and Hong (2008), behavioral intentions are often used to assess tourists’ potential for revisiting since they are considered to be a relatively accurate predictor of future behavior. Numerous studies developed models depicting future intentions as final consequences of tourism behaviors (Baker & Crompton, 2000; Bowen & Daniels, 2005; Kozak & Rimmington, 2000; Tian-Cole, Crompton, & Willson, 2002;Um, Chon, & Ro, 2006). Future intentions are defined as the subjective judgments about how a person will behave in the future (Boulding, Kalra, Staelin, & Zeithaml, 1993; Soderlund & Ohman, 2003). Alternatively, they are referred to as the willingness of tourists to revisit a destination (Sankrusme, 2017). In practice, Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, and Gremler (2002) and Oliver (1999) consider future intentions as conative loyalty, which is characterized with deeper of commitment of tourists with the destination. Yazıcı, Kocak, and Altunsöz (2017) tested a model in which perceived experiences were proposed to interact with festival satisfaction to predict future intentions using an experiential marketing approach. In the network, customers obtain experiential values by experiencing sharing services, which exert an impact on their future intentions using energy sharing services (Tsou, Chen, Chou, & Chen, 2019). As customers accumulate more direct experiences, they are more likely to act out of perceptions of products, emotional reactions and future intentions, forming high consistency of attitude and behavior (Breckler & Wiggins, 1984). Ahn and Back (2019) show that many service organizations have adopted an experiential marketing approach to obtain positive future intentions by reinforcing positive customer experiences. Wu, Chen, and Cheng (2019b) and Wu and Cheng (2020) define future experiential intentions as tourists’ subjective probability that they will perform some experiential behavior in the future. Julaimi, Abdul Talib, and Suhaimi (2016) and Wu and Cheng (2020) indicate that even though there is a close relationship between travel experiences and future intentions, future experiential intentions have not been widely explored in the tourism industry.

The literature on the process dimension suggests that place attachment promotes self-esteem in youth and enhances their trust towards peers and adults (Scannell & Gifford, 2010). Stefaniak, Bilewicz, and Lewicka (2017) identify that increased dimensions of place attachment enhance trust. Manturuk, Lindblad, and Quercia (2017) present that the dimensions of place attachment may generate feelings of trust towards one’s neighbors. Lewicka (2011) proposes that the effects of the dimensions of place attachment on trust are positive. Lee (2015) finds that trust is influenced by the dimensions of place attachment. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the studies focuses on examining secure attachment with its four dimensions (secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding), and its role in predicting experiential trust in the tourism industry, particularly in the context of COVID–19. Consequently, the following hypotheses are developed:

H1a Secure identity has a positive influence on experiential trust.

H1b Secure dependence has a positive influence on experiential trust.

H1c Secure affect has a positive influence on experiential trust.

H1d Secure social bonding has a positive influence on experiential trust.

It is generally accepted that trust is a precursor to commitment in a business-to-business exchange relationship (Gil-Saura et al., 2009; Moliner et al., 2007; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Several researchers (Achrol, 1991; Farrelly & Quester, 2003; Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992) emphasize that greater levels of trust improve the level of commitment to a given relationship. Hadjikhani and Thilenius (2005) reveal that trust can be expected to have a direct and positive impact on commitment because trading relationships based on trust are usually highly appreciated by those involved in them. Hess and Story (2005) find that personal and functional connections are driven by trust. Randall et al. (2011) propose that trust is an antecedent of connection, indicating that trust positively influences connection. Hall (2001) shows that trust plays a role in making the connection between uncertainty and special features. Colquitt and Rodell (2011) present that trust is an important factor in influencing the performance of connection. Hess and Story (2005) describe that the relative strengths of personal and functional connections determine the nature and outcomes of relationship commitment. In addition, they show that a consumer has a primarily personal or functional connection to the brand implies significantly different levels and types of commitment. Bowen and Shoemaker (2003) present that the organization’s external connection can make the customer’s commitment to it. Kim, Park, and Glovinsky (2018) propose that connection will have a positive influence on commitment to the brand. However, the relationships between experiential trust, experiential commitment and experiential connection remain sparse in the tourism industry. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H2 Experiential trust has a positive influence on experiential commitment.

H3 Experiential trust has a positive influence on experiential connection.

H4 Experiential connection has a positive influence on experiential connection.

Seo, Back, and Shanklin (2011) propose that commitment is a significant determinant of future intentions. Rosenbaum, Massiah, and Jackson (2006) show that trust can be used to predict future intentions. Accordingly, high levels of trust lead to high perceptions of future intentions. Chen (2007) reveals that trust has a direct effect on future intentions. According to Li, Chou, and Yan (2009), higher levels of customer trust lead to higher levels of customer future intentions. Garbarino and Johnson (1999) present that commitment and trust are influential in the future intentions of an exchange partner. In addition, they report that commitment and trust are predictors of future intentions in the case of relational customers. Morgan and Hunt (1994) propose that commitment and trust have been proven to have a strong effect on the future intentions of the customers. Randall et al. (2011) argue that connection positively influences future intentions. Lin, Wu, and Chang (2006) find that destination connections contribute to a positive influence on future visit intentions. Steinhart and Jiang (2019) describe that people’s perceptions of future intentions will be high when they perceive themselves as having abundant social connections. However, to the best of our knowledge, none of the studies focuses on the relationships between experiential trust, experiential commitment, experiential connection and future experiential intentions in the tourism industry. As a consequence, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H5 Experiential commitment has a positive influence on future experiential intentions.

H6 Experiential trust has a positive influence on future experiential intentions.

H7 Experiential connection has a positive influence on future experiential intentions.

3.1 Questionnaire and pre-test

This study adapted the measurement items from previous studies and all scales included multiple items. To measure the dimensions of secure attachment (secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding), 12 items were adapted from Ramkissoon et al. (2013a). Based on Wu and Chang (2019, 2020), three items were developed to assess experiential trust. Seven questions based on Wu and Chang (2019, 2020) were designed to measure experiential commitment. Experiential connection was measured with four items from Randall et al.’s (2011) study. Finally, future experiential intentions were measured with three items of the scale created by Wu and Cheng (2020) and Wu et al. (2019b). All construct items were measured using seven-point Likert-type scales anchored by “strongly disagree” (1) and “strongly agree” (7).

The content-based validity of the instrument was initially established by sending it to 15 experts, including seven tourism managers and eight assistant and associate professors from the USA, all of whom specialized in tourism marketing. To ensure clarity, a pilot study was conducted where questionnaires were distributed to 45 tourists who had traveled during the COVID–19 outbreak to seek feedback on the design. Based on this feedback, several minor changes were made in order to tailor the questionnaire to the target audience.

3.2 Data collection and procedure

A survey was conducted to collect the data from the tourists in Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, USA. A convenience sampling method was used to select the study elements aged over 18 years between March 18 and May 18, 2020. Persons who had traveled by domestic or international airlines during the COVID–19 outbreak were targeted for inclusion in the study. The rationale for selecting this airport is that it has been the world’s busiest airport every year since 2000. Also, this surveyed airport reached a total number of passengers of 107,394,029 in 2018 (Russell Publishing Limited, 2020). The questionnaires were distributed by university researchers and students to the respondents. The surveyors were trained to randomly approach respondents, informing them about the purpose of the survey before they were given the questionnaire. After the respondents indicated they were willing to respond, they were given the questionnaires to fill in. The questionnaire was self-completed by the tourists, with assistance available if required. The respondents were required to complete and return the questionnaire to the surveyors on the spot. To ensure confidentiality, the names of study participants were not required and the surveyors ensured that all survey respondents’ responses would remain completely confidential and anonymous. Non-respondents who chose not to participate generally noted that they did not want to be disturbed during their tours. The coupon for the quick service restaurant was giving out as a gift to increase the response rate. A total of 600 questionnaires were distributed and 545 questionnaires were collected back, representing a response rate of 90.83%. During the data refinement process, 40 questionnaires were eliminated from the study and 505 questionnaires were coded for the purpose of data analysis.

4.1 Sample profile

Table 1 provides the demographic profile of the respondents who participated in this study. Most respondents were male (53.86%), single (56.83%), and aged between 25 and 34 years (41.78%). The majority of respondents held a college or university degree (46.34%), and worked full time (32.87%). The respondents’ average monthly income mainly ranged between US$951 and US$1,500 (41.58%).

4.2 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

EFA was applied to the captured responses corresponding to attributes. Before establishing the factor structure, initially the correlation matrix was checked to find its suitability for factor analysis. The sample size adequacy for factor analysis was determined by The Kasier-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy value, which was found to be more than 0.92 (Kaiser, 1974). Also, the test statistic for Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (BTS) (Bartlett, 1954) value was found to be big enough. The BTS was also significant at low significance level (0.000). To extract the factors, principal axis factoring method was used by applying the constraint of higher than one eigenvalue for each factor (Malhotra & Birks, 2007). Moreover, only variables with loadings of at least 0.50 were included in the analysis. After EFA was conducted, a total of 29 items loaded properly on the factors. Only one item (i.e. I experience a sense of connection with the settings and facilities provided the destination I visit during the COVID–19 outbreak.) from experiential connection was removed from this study respectively since it did not load on any of the factors and its factor loading value was below 0.50. Accordingly, the final factors including secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect, secure social bonding, experiential trust, experiential commitment, experiential connection and future experiential intentions consisted of three, three, three, three, three, seven, three and three, respectively. The total variance explained was thus 61.19%, which was above the suggested threshold of 60% (Hinkin, 2005). Cronbach’s alpha (α) was used to analyze the reliability of the instruments. Reliability over 0.80 is good; reliability in the range of 0.70 is acceptable; and reliability less than 0.60 is considered poor (Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2010). The Cronbach’s coefficient α estimates for the eight variables were greater than the 0.70 considered acceptable. The EFA results satisfied the requirement for the reliability coefficient of the measurement scales, revealing high internal consistency (Hair et al., 2010).

4.3 Convergent and discriminant validity of the measures

A variance inflation factor (VIF) value greater than 10 is usually considered problematic (Hair et al., 2010). In this study, the VIF values for all eight constructs of this study ranged between 1.80 and 2.62. Accordingly, the data can be assumed to be free of the problem of multi-collinearity. Using LISREL 8.7., confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the sample validity. Table 2 indicates the CFA results. The composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated manually to measure construct reliability and convergent validity. According to Hair et al. (2010), the acceptable CR value is 0.70 and above. Accordingly, all of the eight constructs had good reliability. For assessing construct validity, each construct was considered to possess convergent validity if a construct had 0.50 or greater AVE values (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The measure displayed convergent validity because the AVE values were greater than the common target of 0.50, ranging between 0.54 and 0.64 for all constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). In addition, the measure was considered to display discriminant validity because the AVE values for each construct were greater than the squared correlations (see Table 3; Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, & Burton, 1990). According to the CFA results, the constructs examined in this study were acceptable in terms of convergent and discriminant validity, and could be conducted using structural equation modeling (SEM) for further path analysis.

4.4 Results of the measurement model test

The overall fit of the measurement models was found to be adequate (see Table 4). The Chi-square/df ratios (2.42) were lower than the suggested threshold (e.g. less than 3.0; Carmines & Mclver, 1981). The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value (0.05) was lower than 0.08, indicating adequate fit (Hari et al., 2010). Moreover, all other indices (e.g. CFI, GFI, IFI and NFI estimates) were greater than the recommended threshold of 0.90 (Hair et al., 2010). Moreover, the AGFI estimate was above the recommended threshold of 0.80 (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1989).

4.5 Results of structural equation analyses

The results of the structural model test are presented in Table 4 and reveal an adequate fit to the data (RMSEA = 0.04, SRMR = 0.03, CFI = 0.98, GFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.97, NFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.89). The chi-square (x²/df)ratio of 2.29 was lower than the suggested criterion (x² /df < 3).

4.6 Research hypothesis test

To test the hypotheses in the conceptual research model using SEM, the results are given in Table 5. In addition, the results of the full model in this study are displayed in Figure 1.

Hypotheses 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d propose that secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding positively influence experiential trust. The hypotheses are partially supported. The results display that secure dependence ( = 0.42, p < 0.001), secure affect ( = 0.24, p < 0.001) and secure social bonding ( = 0.13, p < 0.01) have a positive influence on experiential trust. However, the effect of secure identity ( = 0.07, p = n.s.) on experiential trust is not supported. These four variables explain 49.82% of the variance in experiential trust.

Hypotheses 2 and 4 assume that experiential trust and experiential connection positively influence experiential commitment. Both of the hypotheses are fully supported. The results show that experiential trust ( = 0.41, p < 0.001) and experiential connection ( = 0.37, p < 0.001). These two variables explain 45.43% of the variance in experiential commitment.

Hypothesis 3 postulates that experiential connection is positively influenced by experiential trust. The hypothesis is supported, revealing that the effect of experiential trust ( = 0.53, p < 0.001) on experiential connection is significant. This variable explains 23.92% of the variance in experiential connection.

Hypotheses 5, 6 and 7 predict that future experiential intentions are positively influenced by experiential commitment, experiential trust and experiential connection. The hypotheses are fully supported. The results display that experiential commitment ( = 0.40, p < 0.001), experiential trust ( = 0.36, p < 0.001) and experiential connection ( = 0.12, p < 0.05) have a positive influence on future experiential intentions. These three variables explain 44.14% of the variance in future experiential intentions.

First, this paper represents one of the first studies to introduce the concept of place attachment to the field of secure research and test the concept of secure attachment. In addition, it proposes the concept of secure attachment as a way to extend the scope of place attachment. By modifying the existing the dimensions of place attachment (place identity, place dependence, place affect and place social bonding) proposed by Ramkissoon et al. (2013b), this paper focuses on the dimensions of secure attachment: secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding. Second, tourists will evaluate the likelihood of their experiences with the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak in the future. To enable tourists to have consistently positive emotional experiences, which include the product and/or service provided by the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak, this paper expands the dimensions of co-creation (trust, commitment and connection) from experiential perspectives of tourists traveling during the COVID–19 outbreak. Namely, the dimensions of experiential co-creation (experiential trust, experiential commitment and experiential connection) are proposed in this paper. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationships between the dimensions of secure attachment, the dimensions of experiential co-creation and future experiential intentions for tourists traveling during the COVID–19 outbreak. The related literature was reviewed to generate a theoretical model of the factors above.

The objective of this study is partially supported. First, the statistical results show that the dimensions of secure attachment (secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding) have a positive effect in experiential trust. These findings concur with the propositions of Gut and Jarrell (2007) and Manturuk et al. (2017) that place attachment generates feelings of trust towards destinations with high safety and security. Accordingly, the dimensions related to secure attachment play a critical role in influencing perceptions of trust (Esbjørn, Breinholst, Kriss, Hald, & Steele, 2015). However, the study result displays that the positive effect of secure identity on experiential trust is insignificant. There are three reasons for this discrepancy. One is attributed to the fact that secure identity is necessary but not a sufficient condition for forming experiential trust. Another is attributed to the fact that as perception levels of secure identity increase, perceptions of trust in the experiences of traveling during the COVID–19 outbreak decrease. The other is attributed to the fact that the majority of tourists may not agree that they identify strongly with the safe destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak, they do not have great confidence in this safe destination. The study finding disagrees with the propositions of Ramkissoon et al. (2013b) and Ujang (2012) that to secure identity is to ensure continuity in the physical, social together with meanings and attachment held by the tourist. Second, the study results display that experiential commitment is positively influenced by experiential trust. This finding is consistent with de Figueiredo Marcos and de Matos Coelho (2018), who propose that a relationship based on trust from both parties creates sufficient value to commit the parties to the relationship. If one party exploits the vulnerabilities of the other, the perceived risk relating to subsequent transactions, and thus their relationship, will increase. Third, the study finding shows that experiential trust has a positive influence on experiential connection, which in turn, results in experiential commitment. This result concurs with the contention of Hadjikhani and Thilenius (2005) that trust increase by vertical connections leading to increased commitment, thus strengthening the relationship while horizontal connection, on the contrary, weakens it. Finally, the study result reveals that future experiential intentions are positively influenced by experiential commitment, experiential trust and experiential connection. This finding agrees with the contentions of several studies (Randall et al., 2011; Wu & Cheng, 2020; Wu et al., 2019b) that commitment, trust and connection are key drivers of intentions to return or revisit the destination in the future.

6.1 Theoretical implications

This study contributes to tourism operators and marketing literature from an academic perspective. It also provides new insights into the dimensions which tourists consider important when evaluating secure attachment, and the effects of the dimensions of secure attachment on the dimensions of experiential co-creation, which in turn, result in future experiential intentions. Currently, no previous studies on tourists’ experiences have used a conceptual research model to synthesize the dimensions of secure attachment, the dimensions of experiential co-creation and future experiential intentions in a path model. First, the study finding indicates that experiential trust is positively influenced by secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding. The positive relationships identified between experiential trust, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding may be interpreted as trust being increased as a result of experiencing a high quality of tourist destinations with high safety and security when tourists have high perceptions of secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding. Second, the empirical results show that experiential commitment is positively influenced by experiential trust and experiential connection. The positive relationship identified between experiential trust and experiential commitment may be interpreted as the higher the experiential trust perceived by tourists, the more they feel emotionally attached to their experiences with the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak. In addition, the positive relationship identified between experiential connection and experiential commitment may be interpreted as the higher the experiential connection perceived by tourists, the more they believe that they are committed to their experiences with the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak. Third, the statistical result shows that experiential connection is positively influenced by experiential trust. The positive relationship identified between experiential trust and experiential connection may be interpreted as the higher the experiential trust perceived by tourists, the more they experience a sense of connection with the service providers in the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak. Finally, the results display that future experiential intentions are positively influenced by experiential commitment, experiential trust and experiential connection. The positive relationships identified between experiential commitment, experiential trust, experiential connection and future experiential intentions may be interpreted as experiential commitment, experiential trust and experiential connection being important drivers of future experiential intentions.

However, the empirical result shows that secure identity does not play a critical role in influencing perceptions of experiential trust in visiting a tourist destination during the COVID–19 outbreak. The insignificant relationship identified between secure identity and experiential trust may be interpreted as the higher the secure identity perceived by tourists, the less they are certain that visiting the tourist destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak would do everything to satisfy their demands. The analysis of the relationships between the proposed hypotheses enhances the establishment of generalizations across the relevant streams of research and includes existing gaps in the tourism literature. We hope that the research results are helpful for managers, researchers and practitioners, in addition to providing a useful contribution to relevant studies and future researches as a reference.

6.2 Practical implications

From a practical perspective, this study provides further insights for tourism operators to better understand the dimensions of secure attachment, the dimensions of experiential co-creation and future experiential intentions using the proposed model, providing useful information to marketing management which is designing products and/or services provided by tourism operators. The study results will provide tourism operators with a clear understanding of relevant constructs: secure identity, secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding, experiential trust, experiential commitment, experiential connection and future experiential intentions perceived by tourists traveling during the COVID–19 outbreak. To provide tourists with a highly safe experience of traveling during the COVID–19 outbreak, understanding these relationships will provide tourism marketers and administrators with information they can apply in developing and implementing products and/or services and marketing strategies. Accordingly, tourism operators should know exactly where and how to invest their money to do the most good, considering the scarcity of resources.According to the results of this study, all the hypotheses proposed in this study are partially supported. First of all, the SEM findings show that secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding have a positive influence on experiential trust. Tourism operators should invest more resources in the increase of secure dependence, secure affect and secure social bonding which is useful to make tourists realize that visiting the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak would do everything to satisfy their demands. However, the statistical result indicates that the positive effect of secure identity on experiential trust is insignificant. There are three reasons to explain this result. One is attributed to the view that tourists may not consider secure identity as an important factor in influencing perceptions of experiential trust. Another is attributed to the view that the majority of tourists may not have great confidence in the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak even though they feel safe to visit that destination. Accordingly, secure identity may not be a key determinant of experiential trust. The other is attributed to the view that most tourists may not agree that visiting the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak would do everything to satisfy their demands. To increase perceptions of experiential trust, tourism operators should use some strategies to motivate tourists to identify strongly with the safe destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak. Second, the study results display that experiential commitment is positively influenced by experiential trust and experiential connection. This may be because the majority of single customers are expected to experience high perceptions of experiential trust when traveling during the COVID–19 outbreak. Therefore, tourism operators should realize that experiential trust plays a critical role in increasing perceptions of commitment to the traveling experience during the COVID–19 outbreak. Also, tourism operators should adopt measures (e.g. increase the clean and hygienic setting and environment free from being infected with COVID–19) in order to make tourists feel emotionally attached to their experiences with the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak. Third, the study finding indicates that experiential trust has a positive influence on experiential connection. Tourism operators should monitor tourists’ perceived experiential trust in order to make tourists experience a sense of connection with the service provider, people and volunteer service provider in the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak. Finally, the empirical results display that future experiential intentions are positively influenced by experiential commitment, experiential trust and experiential connection. This may be because the majority of tourists are expected to have high perceptions of experiential commitment, experiential trust and experiential connection when they are willing to recommend their experiences with the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak to their relatives and close friends. Tourism operators should be aware that experiential commitment, experiential trust and experiential connection play critical roles in increasing perceptions of intentions to experience the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak in the future. To increase tourists’ perceptions of future intentions to return or revisit the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak, tourism operators should make them not only feel emotionally attached to their experience with the destination, but also believe that the destination really takes care of their need for support. In addition, tourism operators should make tourists experience a sense of connection with the setting and environment with high safety and security provided by the destination they visit during the COVID–19 outbreak.

To help with appropriate interpretation of the findings, the limitations of this study must be discussed. First and foremost, this paper obtained a relatively large response (N = 505). Since the sample was confined to the respondents in Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport, USA, this may limit the ability to generalize the results to respondents in other regions or countries. Future research is encouraged to test the conceptual model developed in this study across different respondents in other regions or countries. Second, this study did not examine the moderating roles of respondents’ characteristics (i.e. gender, marital status, age, education, occupation and monthly income) on the perceptions of the dimensions of secure attachment, the dimensions of experiential co-creation and future experiential intentions. A more detailed understanding of what moderators significantly influence tourists’ overall evaluation of traveling during the COVID–19 outbreak will be beneficial for tourism marketers’ strategies. Finally, the cross-sectional design used in this study limits the ability of observing changing patterns of subjects across time, which may have caused misidentification of the relationships between independent and dependent variables. This limits strong assertions about the ordered structure of the model even if we strictly follow the literature in developing such a structure. Future research will benefit from the collection of longitudinal and experimental data to measure the direction of causality among relationships more precisely.

Funding Acknowledgements

This study was supported by Department of Education of Guangdong Province (Grant Number 2018WTSCX214).

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

Achrol, R. (1991). Evolution of the marketing organization: New forms for turbulent environments. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 77-93.
Ahn, J., & Back, K. J. (2019). Cruise brand experience: Functional and wellness value creation in tourism business. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(5), 2205-2223.
Ainsworth, M. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709-716.
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Altman, I., & Low, S. M. (1992). Place attachment. New York, NY: Springer.
Awuor, F. O., Hayombe, P. O., & Ayieko, M. A. (2015). Experiential value co-creation: What’s the significance of the co-created value to providers?. International Journal of Business and Social Research, 5(10), 1-9.
Baker, D. A., & Crompton, J. L. (2000). Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Annals of Tourism Research, 27(3), 785-804.
Barker, K. K., & Galardi, T. R. (2011). Dead by 50: Lay expertise and breast cancer screening. Social Science & Medicine, 72(8), 1351-1358.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various X Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 16(2), 296-298.
Baumeister, T., & Dong, Y. (2016). Towards secure identity management for the smart grid. Security and Communication Networks, 9(9), 808-822.
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183-200.
Berman, W. H., & Sperling, M. B. (1994). The structure and function of adult attachment. In M. B. Sperling & W. H. Berman (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives (pp. 1-28). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Berrada, M. (2017). Co-creation of the tourist experience via internet: Towards exploring a new practice. Journal of International Business Research and Marketing, 2(5), 28-23.
Berry, L. L. (1995). Relationship marketing of services—growing interest, emerging perspectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 23(4), 236-245.
Binkhorst, E., & Dekker, T. D. (2009). Agenda for co-creation tourism experience research. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management, 18(2/3), 311-327.
Bødker, M., & Browning, D. (2012). Beyond destinations: Exploring tourist technology design spaces through local–tourist interactions. Digital Creativity, 23(3/4), 204-224.
Borden, R. J., & Schettino, A. P. (1979). Determinants of environmentally responsible behavior. The Journal of Environmental Education, 10(4), 35-39.
Boulding, W., Kalra, A., Staelin, R., & Zeithaml, V. A. (1993). A dynamic process model of service quality: From expectations to behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), 7-27.
Bowen, H. E., & Daniels, M. J. (2005). Does the music matter? Motivations for attending a music festival. Event Management, 9(3), 155-164.
Bowen, J. T., & Shoemaker, S. (2003). Loyalty: A strategic commitment. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 44(5/6), 31-46.
Bowlby, J. (1980). Loss: Sadness and depression. Attachment and loss, vol. 3 (International psycho-analytical library no. 109).London, UK: Hogarth Press.
Breakwell, G. M. (1992). Social psychology of identity and the self-concept. London, UK: Surrey University Press.
Breckler, S. J., & Wiggins, E. C. (1991). Cognitive responses in persuasion: Affective and evaluative determinants. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(2), 180-200.
Buonincontri, P., Morvillo, A., Okumus, F., & van Niekerk, M. (2017). Managing the experience co-creation process in tourism destinations: Empirical findings from Naples. Tourism Management, 62, 264-277.
Cabiddu, F., Lui, T.-W., & Piccoli, G. (2013). Managing value co-creation in the tourism industry. Annals of Tourism Research, 42, 86-107.
Cai, Z., & Wheale, P. (2004). Creating sustainable corporate value: A case study of stakeholder relationship management in China. Business and Society Review, 109(4), 507-547.
Candiotti, A., Zuberbühler, K., & Lemasson, A. (2012). Convergence and divergence in Diana monkey vocalizations. Biology Letters, 8(3), 382-385.
Carmines, E. G., & Mclver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with observable variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt, & E. F. Borgatta. (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues (pp. 65-115). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Chang, C. L., McAleer, M., & Ramos, V. (2020). A charter for sustainable tourism after COVID-19. DOI: 10.3390/su12093671
Chathoth, P. K., Ungson, G. R., Harrington, R. J., Altinay, L., Okumus, F., & Chan, E. S. W. (2014). Conceptualization of value co-creation in the tourism context. In N. K. Prebensen, J. S. Chen, & M. S. Uysal (Eds.) Creating experience value in tourism (pp. 33-47). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.
Chaudhuri, A., & Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: The role of brand loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
Chen, C. (2007). Consumer trust in an e-retailer: An integrative model directed toward customer retention. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., Lai, H., & Chang, C. M. (2012). Re-examining the influence of trust on online repeat purchase intention: The moderating role of habit and its antecedents. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 835-845.
Colquitt, J. A., & Rodell, J. B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183-1206.
Cornelisse, M. (2014). Memorable tourist experiences in authentic Vicos, Peru. Journal of Tourism Consumption and Practice, 6(1), 104-127.
de Figueiredo Marcos, A. M. B., & de Matos Coelho, A. F. (2018). Communication relational outcomes in the insurance industry. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 30(5), 1294-1318.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(2), 35-51.
Duchon, D., & Plowman, D. A. (2005). Nurturing the spirit at work: Impact on work unit performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 807-833.
Esbjørn, B. H., Breinholst, S., Kriss, A., Hald, H. H., & Steele, H. (2015). Can attachment and peer relation constructs predict anxiety in ethnic minority youths? A longitudinal exploratory study. Attachment & Human Development, 17(6), 599-614.
Farrelly, F., & Quester, P. (2003). The effects of market orientation on trust and commitment: The case of the sponsorship business-to-business relationship. European Journal of Marketing, 37(3/4), 530-553.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87.
Gil‐Saura, I., Frasquet‐Deltoro, M., & Cervera‐Taulet, A. (2009). The value of B2B relationships. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109(5), 593-609.
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
Green, N. (2002). On the move: Technology, mobility, and the mediation of social time and space. The Information Society, 18(4), 281-292.
Grissemann, U. S., & Stokburger-Sauer, N. E. (2012). Customer co-creation of travel services: The role of company support and customer satisfaction with the co-creation performance. Tourism Management, 33(6), 1483-1492.
Grönroos, C., & Voima, P. (2013). Critical service logic: Making sense of value creation and co-creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(2), 133-150.
Gut, P., & Jarrell, S. (2007). Silver lining on a dark cloud: The impact of 9/11 on a regional tourist destination. Journal of Travel Research, 46(2), 147-153.
Hadjikhani, A., & Thilenius, P. (2005). The impact of horizontal and vertical connections on relationships’ commitment and trust. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 20(3), 136-147.
Hair, J. F. J., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. F. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Hall, M. A. (2001). Arrow on trust. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 26(5), 1131-1144.
Halpenny, E. A. (2010). Pro-environmental behaviours and park visitors: The effect of place attachment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 409-421.
Hammitt, W. E., Kyle, G. T., & Oh, C. O. (2009). Comparison of place bonding models in recreation resource management. Journal of Leisure Research, 41(1), 57-72.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. S. (2013). Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting switching intention: Conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(3), 303-329.
Hardwick, B., & Ford, D. (1986). Industrial buyer resources and responsibilities and the buyer-seller relationships. Industrial Marketing and Purchasing, 1(1), 3-25.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., & Gremler, D. D. (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 4(3), 230-247.
Hernandez, B., Hidalgo, M. C., & Ruiz, C. (2014). Theoretical and methodological aspects of research on place attachment. In L. Manzo, & P. Devine-Wright (Eds.), Place attachment: Advances in theory, methods and applications (pp. 125-137). London, UK: Routledge.
Hess, J., & Story, J. (2005). Trust-based commitment: Multidimensional consumer-brand relationships. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(6), 313-322.
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 273-281.
Hinkin, T. R. (2005). Scale development principles and practices. In R. A. Swanson & E. F. Holton (Eds.), Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry (pp. 161-179). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Huang, C., Wang, Y., Li, X., Ren, L., Zhao, J., Hu, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, G., Xu, J., Gu, X., Cheng, Z., Yu, T., Xia, J., Wei, Y., Wu, W., Xie, X., Yin, W., Li, H., Liu, M., Xiao, Y., Gao, H., Guo, L., Xie, J., Wang, G., Jiang, R., Gao, Z., Jin, Q., Wang, J., & Cao, B. (2020). Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan, China. The Lancet, 395(10223), 497-506.
Isa, S. M., Ariyanto, H. H., & Kiumarsi, S. (2020). The effect of place attachment on visitors’ revisit intentions: Evidence from Batam. Tourism Geographies, 22(1), 51-82.
Jaakkola, E., Helkkula, A., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., & Verleye, K. (2015). The co-creation experience from the customer perspective: Its measurement and determinants. Journal of Service Management, 26(2), 321-342.
Janis, I. L., & King, B. T. (1954). The influence of role playing on opinion change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(2), 211-218.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners’ attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 233-248.
Julaimi, A. R., Abdul Talib, S., & Suhaimi, M. Z. (2016). International tourists revisit intention: A case of the United Arab Emirates. Journal of Tourism, Hospitality & Culinary Arts, 8, 35-42.
(2020). Physical support. Retrieved March 11, 2020, from https://www.junomagazine.com/physical-support%EF%BB%BF/
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31-36.
Kals, E., Schumacher, D., & Montada, L. (1999). Emotional affinity toward nature as a motivational basis to protect nature. Environment and Behavior, 31(2), 178-202.
Karsono, B., Indira, S. S., & Deni, D. (2015). The significance of uniqueness, comfort, Security and safety to place attachment. Jurnal Teknologi, 78(5), 179-183.
Kim, J., Park, J., & Glovinsky, P. L. (2018). Customer involvement, fashion consciousness, and loyalty for fast-fashion retailers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 22(3), 301-316.
Knez, I. (2014). Place and the self: An autobiographical memory synthesis. Philosophical Psychology, 27(2), 164-192.
Korstanje, M. E. (2011). The fear of traveling: A new perspective for tourism and hospitality. Anatolia, 22(2), 222-233.
Kozak, M., & Rimmington, M. (2000). Tourist satisfaction with Mallorca, Spain, as an off-season holiday destination. Journal of Travel Research, 38(3), 260-269.
Kramer, R. M., & Tyler, T. R. (1996). Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kyle, G., Bricker, K., Graefe, A., & Wickham, T. (2004). An examination of recreationists’ relationships with activities and settings. Leisure Sciences, 26(2), 123-142.
Kyle, G., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. (2005). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment in recreational settings. Environment and Behavior, 37(2), 153-177.
Lariviere, B., Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, B., Aksoy, L., & Malthouse, E. C. (2014). A longitudinal examination of customer commitment and loyalty. Journal of Service Management, 25(1), 75-100.
Learning About Dogs Ltd. (2020). The connection collective. Retrieved from https://www.learningaboutdogs.com/connection_collective/
Lee, J., Kyle, G., & Scott, D. (2012). The mediating effect of place attachment on the relationship between festival satisfaction and loyalty to the festival hosting destination. Journal of Travel Research, 51(6), 754-767.
Lee, J. S. (2015). Analysis of place attachment and trust in residential community-Developing strategies for the revitalization of intimacy zone. Journal of the Korean Housing Association, 26(1), 53-60.
Lee, S. Y., Huh, J., & Hong, S. K. (2008). Determining behavioral intention to visit a festival among first-time and repeat visitors. International Journal of Tourism Sciences, 8(1), 39-55.
Lee, Y. E., & Benbasat, I. (2004). A framework for the study of customer interface design for mobile commerce. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 8(3), 79-102.
Leiphart, L. R., & Barnes, M. G. (2005). The client experience of assertive community treatment: A qualitative study. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 28(4), 395-397.
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years?. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31(3), 207-230.
Li, Q., Guan, X., Wu, P., Wang, X., Zhou, L., Tong, Y., Ren, R., Leung, K. S. M., Lau, E. H. Y., Wong, J. Y., Xing, X., Xiang, N., Wu, Y., Li, C., Chen, Q., Li, D., Liu, T., Zhao, J., Li, M., Tu, W., Chen, C., Jin, L., Yang, R., Wang, Q., Zhou, S., Wang, R., Liu, H., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., Shao, G., Li, H., Tao, Z., Yang, Y., Deng, Z., Liu, B., Ma, Z., Zhang, Y., Shi, G., Lam, T. T. Y., Wu, J. T. K., Gao, G. F., Cowling, B. J., Yang, B., Leung, G. M., & Feng, Z. (2020). Early transmission dynamics in Wuhan, China, of novel coronavirus-infected pneumonia. The New England Journal of Medicine. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001316
Li, Y. C., Chou, T. J., & Yan, X. Q. (2009). The effect of service quality and opportunistic behavior on customer share and future intentions in business market: The pivotal role of trust. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1358691
Lichrou, M., O’Malley, L., & Patterson, M. (2008). Place product or place narrative(s)? Perspectives in the marketing of tourism destinations. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16(1), 27-39.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Netemeyer, R. G., & Burton, S. (1990). Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: An acquisition-transaction utility theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 54-67.
Lin, Y. H., Wu, C. Y., & Chang, J. (2006). Destination image and visit intention among members of Yahoo!-Taiwan’s travel communities: An online survey approach. Tourism Analysis, 11(1), 61-69.
Liu, Q., Fu, W., den Bosch, V., Konijnendijk, C. C., Xiao, Y., Zhu, Z., You, D., Zhu, N., Huang, Q., & Lan, S. (2018). Do local landscape elements enhance individuals’ place attachment to new environments? A cross-regional comparative study in China. Sustainability, 10(9), 1-17.
(2020). Is it safe to travel to Taiwan now amidst Coronavirus?. Retrieved from https://lociamica.com/is-it-safe-to-travel-to-taiwan-now-amidst-coronavirus/
Loures, L. S., & Burley, J. (2012). Post-industrial land transformation—An approach to sociocultural aspects as catalysts for urban redevelopment. In B. Jaroslav (Ed.), Advances in spatial planning (pp. 223-246). London, UK: InTech.
Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman, & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1-12). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Malhotra, N., & Birks, D. (2007). Marketing research: An applied approach. London, UK: Prentice Hall.

Manturuk, K. R., Lindblad, M. R., & Quercia, R. G. (2017). A place called home: The social dimensions of homeownership. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Manzo, L. C. (2008). Experience of displacement on sense of place and well-being. In J. Eyles, & A. Williams (Eds.), Sense of place, health and quality of life (pp. 87-104). London, UK: Ashgate.
Mathis, E. F. (2013). The effects of co-creation and satisfaction on subjective well-being. Unpublished master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Mishra, S., Mazumdar, S., & Suar, D. (2010). Place attachment and flood preparedness. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 187-197.
Moliner, M. A., Sánchez, J., Rodríguez, R. M., & Callarisa, L. (2007). Perceived relationship quality and post‐purchase perceived value. European Journal of Marketing, 41(11/12), 1392-1422.
Moore, R. L., & Graefe, A. R. (1994). Attachments to recreation settings: The case of rail trail users. Leisure Sciences, 16(1), 17-31.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factor affecting trust in market research relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81-101.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of market research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), 314-328.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Mukhtar, M., Ismail, M. N., & Yahya, Y. (2012). A hierarchical classification of co-creation models and techniques to aid in product or service design. Computers in Industry, 63(4), 289-297.
Mummalaneni, B. (1987). The influence of a close personal relationship between the buyer and seller on the continued stability of theory role relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., & Ladkin, A. (2012). Conceptualising technology enhanced destination experiences. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 1(1/2), 36-46.
Oh My Good Guide. (2020). Safe travelling after Coronavirus ends: How, when and where?. Retrieved from https://ohmygoodguide.com/when-where-how-safe-travel-after-coronavirus/
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty?. Journal of Marketing, 63, 33-44.
Oppermann, M. (2000). Tourism destination loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 39(1), 78-84.
Payton, M. A., Fulton, D. C., & Anderson, D. H. (2005). Influence of place attachment and trust on civic action: A study at Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. Society and Natural Resources, 18(6), 511-528.
Petchsawang, P., & Duchon, D. (2009). Measuring workplace spirituality in an Asian context. Human Resource Development International, 12(4), 459-468.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard Business Review, 76, 97-105.
Ponizovsky, A. M., Vitenberg, E., Baumgarten‐Katz, I., & Grinshpoon, A. (2013). Attachment styles and affect regulation among outpatients with schizophrenia: Relationships to symptomatology and emotional distress. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 86(2), 164-182.
Prahalad, C. K. (2004). The co-creation of value-invited commentaries on “evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing”. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 18-27.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5-14.
Prayag, G., & Ryan, C. (2012). Antecedents of tourists’ loyalty to Mauritius: The role and influence of destination image, place attachment, personal involvement, and satisfaction. Journal of Travel Research, 51(3), 342-356.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57-83.
Räikkönen, J., & Honkanen, A. (2013). Does satisfaction with package tours lead to successful vacation experiences?. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 2(2), 108–117.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L. D. G., & Weiler, B. (2013a). Relationships between place attachment, place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian national park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 21(3), 434-457.
Ramkissoon, H., Smith, L. D. G., & Weiler, B. (2013b). Testing the dimensionality of place attachment and its relationships with place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviours: A structural equation modelling approach. Tourism Management, 36, 552-566.
Ramkissoon, H., Weiler, B., & Smith, L. D. G. (2012). Place attachment and pro-environmental behaviour in national parks: The development of a conceptual framework. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 20(2), 257-276.
Randall, W. S., Gravier, M. J., & Prybutok, V. R. (2011). Connection, trust, and commitment: Dimensions of co-creation?. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(1), 3-24.
Rihova, I., Buhalis, D., Gouthro, M. B., & Moital, M. (2018). Customer-to-customer cocreation practices in tourism: Lessons from customer-dominant logic. Tourism Management, 67, 362-375.
Rollero, C., & De Piccoli, N. (2010a). Does place attachment affect social well-being?. European Review of Applied Psychology, 60(4), 233-238.
Rollero, C., & De Piccoli, N. (2010b). Place attachment, identification and environment perception: An empirical study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(2), 198-205.
Rosenbaum, M. S., Massiah, C., & Jackson, D. W. Jr. (2006). An investigation of trust, satisfaction and commitment on repurchase intentions in professional services. Services Marketing Quarterly, 27(3), 115-135.
Russell Publishing Limited. (2020). The top 20 busiest airports in the world by passenger number. Retrieved from https://www.internationalairportreview.com/article/32311/top-20-largest-airports-world-passenger-number/
Sankrusme, S. (2017). Tourism management of Russian behavioral intention toward Thailand. Hamburg, Germany: Anchor Academic Publishing.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(1), 1-10.
Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2017). Place attachment enhances psychological need satisfaction. Environment and Behavior, 49(4), 359-389.
Schengen Visa Info. (2020). Coronavirus: How to stay safe on your travels?. Retrieved from https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/coronavirus-how-to-stay-safe-on-your-travels/
Schmitt, B., Brakus, J. J., & Zarantonello, L. (2015). From experiential psychology to consumer experience. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(1), 166-171.
Seal, C. R., Naumann, S. E., Scott, A. N., & Royce-Davis, J. (2011). Social emotional development: A new model of student learning in higher education. Research in Higher Education Journal, 10, 1-13.
Seo, S., Back, K. J., & Shanklin, C. W. (2011). Importance of relationship quality and communication on foodservice for the elderly. Nutrition Research and Practice, 5(1), 73-79.
Shaw, G., Bailey, A., & Williams, A. (2011). Aspects of service-dominant logic and its implications for tourism management: Examples from the hotel industry. Tourism Management, 32(2), 207-214.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15-37.
Smith, J. B., & Barclay, D. W. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 3-21.
Soderlund, M., & Ohman, N. (2003). Behavioral intentions in satisfaction research revisited. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 16, 53-66.
Song, H. J., Lee, C. K., Kim, M., Bendle, L. J., & Shin, C. Y. (2014). Investigating relationships among festival quality, satisfaction, trust, and support: The case of an oriental medicine festival. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 31(2), 211-228.
Song, Z., & Soopramanien, D. (2019). Types of place attachment and pro-environmental behaviors of urban residents in Beijing. Cities, 84, 112-120.
Stefaniak, A., Bilewicz, M., & Lewicka, M. (2017). The merits of teaching local history: Increased place attachment enhances civic engagement and social trust. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 217-225.
Steinhart, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2019). Securing the future: Threat to self-image spurs financial saving intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(4), 741-757.
Stokols, D., & Shumaker, S. A. (1981). People in places: A transactional view of settings.. In J. H. Harvey (Ed.). Cognition social behaviour and the environment (pp. 441-488). Hillsdale, NJ. Lawrence Erlbaum Association.
Suntikul, W., & Jachna, T. (2016). The co-creation/place attachment nexus. Tourism Management, 52, 276-286.
The Luxury Travel Expert. (2020). Is it safe to travel during the Coronavirus pandemic?. Retrieved from https://theluxurytravelexpert.com/2020/03/13/is-it-safe-to-travel-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic/
The World Tourism Organization. (2020). Stay healthy, travel responsibly. Retrieved from https://www.unwto.org/health-advice-for-tourists
Tian-Cole, S., Crompton, J. L., & Willson, V. L. (2002). An empirical investigation of the relationships between service quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions among visitors to a wildlife refuge. Journal of Leisure Research, 34(1), 1-24.
Trip 101. (2020). Coronavirus (COVID-19) travel advice: Is it safe to travel anywhere?. Retrieved from https://trip101.com/article/coronavirus-travel-advice-is-it-safe-to-travel-anywhere
Tsou, H. T., Chen, J. S., Chou, C. Y., & Chen, T. W. (2019). Sharing economy service experience and its effects on behavioral intention. Sustainability, 11(18), 1-25.
Turner, T., & Shockley, J. (2014). Creating shopper value: Co-creation roles, in-store selfservice technology use, and value differentiation. Journal of Promotion Management, 20(3), 311-327.
Ujang, N. (2012). Place attachment and continuity of urban place identity. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 49, 156-167.
Um, S., Chon, K., & Ro, Y. (2006). Antecedents of revisit intention. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 1141-1158.
van der Westhuizen, L. M. (2018). Brand loyalty: Exploring self-brand connection and brand experience. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 27(2), 172-184.
Vaske, J., & Kobrin, K. (2001). Place attachment and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Environmental Education, 32(4), 16–21.
Walker, A. J., & Ryan, R. L. (2008). Place attachment and landscape preservation in rural New England: A Maine case study. Landscape and Urban Planning, 86(2), 141-152.
Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences, 14(1), 29-46.
Williams, D. R., & Vaske, J. J. (2003). The measurement of place attachment: Validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science, 49(6), 830-840.
Wimberley, R. C. (1978). Dimensions of commitment: Generalizing from religion to politics. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17(3), 225-240.
(2020). Why satisfied customers aren’t enough?. Retrieved from http://www.ppdbusinesscoaching.com/customer-loyalty-as-a-growth-strategy/
World Travel & Tourism Council. (2020). Traveller COVID-19 hub. Retrieved from https://wttc.org/en-gb/COVID-19/Traveller-Hub
Wu, H. C. (2017). What drives experiential loyalty? A case study of Starbucks coffee chain in Taiwan. British Food Journal, 119(3), 468-496.
Wu, H. C., & Chang, Y. Y. (2019). What drives advocacy intentions? A case study of Mainland Chinese tourists to Taiwan. Journal of China Tourism Research, 15(2), 213-239.
Wu, H. C., & Chang, Y. Y. (2020). Arctic attachment and experiential relationship marketing in Arctic tourism. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 20(2), 178-203.
Wu, H. C., Chang, Y. Y., & Wu, T. P. (2019a). Pilgrimage: What drives pilgrim experiential supportive intentions?. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 38, 66-81.
Wu, H. C., Chen, X., & Cheng, C. C. (2019b). Relationships between experiential cultural distance, experiential relationship quality and experiential future intentions: The case of Mainland Chinese tourists. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change. DOI: 10.1080/14766825.2019.1679160
Wu, H. C., & Cheng, C. C. (2018). Relationships between technology attachment, experiential relationship quality, experiential risk and experiential sharing intentions in a smart hotel. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 37, 42-58.
Wu, H. C., & Cheng, C. C. (2020). Relationships between experiential risk, experiential benefits, experiential evaluation, experiential co-creation, experiential relationship quality, and future experiential intentions to travel with pets. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 26(1), 108-129.
Wu, H. C., Cheng, C. C., Ai, C. H., & Chen, G. (2019c). Relationships between restaurant attachment, experiential relationship quality and experiential relationship intentions: The case of single friendly restaurants in Taiwan. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 40, 50-66.
Wu, H. C., Cheng, C. C., Ai, C. H., & Wu, T. P. (2020). Fast-disappearing destinations: The relationships among experiential authenticity, last-chance attachment and experiential relationship quality. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 28(7), 956-977.
Wu, H. C., & Li, T. (2017). A study of experiential quality, perceived value, heritage image, experiential satisfaction, and behavioral intentions for heritage tourists. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 41(8), 904-944.
Xu, Z., & Zhang, J. (2016). Antecedents and consequences of place attachment: A comparison of Chinese and western urban tourists in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 5(2), 86-96.
Yazıcı, T., Kocak, S., & Altunsöz, I. H. (2017). Examining the effect of experiential marketing on behavioral intentions in a festival with a specific sport event. European Sport Management Quarterly, 17(2), 171-192.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
Zhu, N., Zhang, D., Wang, W., Li, X., Yang, B., Song, J., Zhao, X., Huang, B., Shi, W., Lu, R., Niu, P., Zhan, F., Ma, X., Wang, D., Xu, W., Wu, G., Gao, G. F., & Tan, W. (2020). A novel coronavirus from patients with pneumonia in China, 2019. The New England Journal of Medicine. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2001017
Zouni, G., & Kouremenos, A. (2008). Do tourism providers know their visitors? An investigation of tourism experience at a destination. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 8(4), 282-297.

Table 1 Survey respondents’ demographic profiles.

Demographic profiles

Statistics

Frequency (N = 505)

Percent

Gender

Male

Female

272

233

53.86

46.14

Marital status

Single

Married

287

218

56.83

43.17

Age

18-24

25-34

211

12.87

41.78

35-44

45-54

55-64

65 and over

15.25

12.48

10.89

6.73

Educational level

Secondary school or below

High school

College or university

Graduate school or above

234

123

13.07

16.24

46.34

24.36

Occupation

Full time

Part time

Housekeeping

Retiree

Student

Other

166

32.87

19.41

8.91

13.27

16.24

9.31

Monthly income before tax

< US$950 or less

US$951-US$1,500

US$1,501-US$1,900

US$1,901-US$2,500

> US$2,501 or more

210

112

13.07

41.58

22.18

11.68

11.49

Table 2 Measurement model and confirmatory factor analysis.

Factor (Cronbach’s alpha)	Items	Standardized factor loadings	AVE	CR	Mean	SD
Secure identity ( = 0.78 )	SI1. I identify strongly with the safe destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.81*	0.64	0.84	3.38	0.71
	SI2. I feel the safe destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak is part of me.	0.80*			3.39	0.79
	SI3. Visiting this safe destination during the COVID-19 outbreak says a lot about who I am.	0.79*			3.49	0.74
Secure dependence ( = 0.74)	SD1. For what I like to do, I could not imagine anything safer than the settings and facilities provided the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.74*	0.54	0.78	3.65	0.82
	SD2. For the activities I enjoy the most, the settings and facilities provided by the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak are the safest.	0.72*			3.42	0.82
	SD3. During the COVID-19 outbreak, I enjoy visiting this destination and its environment safer than any other destinations.	0.75*			3.25	0.79
Secure affect ( = 0.78)	SA1. I am very attached to the safe destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.77*	0.60	0.82	3.50	0.75
	SA2. I feel a strong sense of belonging to the safe destination and its settings and facilities I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.77*			3.47	0.79
	SA3. The safe destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak means a lot to me.	0.78*			3.40	0.78
Secure social bonding ( = 0.75 )	SSB1. Many of my friends/family prefer the safe destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak over many other destination.	0.79*	0.62	0.83	3.31	0.75
	SSB2. If I were to stop visiting this safe destination, I would lose contact with a number of friends.	0.80*			3.23	0.79
	SSB3. My friends/family would be disappointed if I were to start visiting other safe settings and facilities during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.77*			3.65	0.77
Experiential trust ( = 0.77)	ET1. The destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak really takes care of my needs as a tourist.	0.76*	0.60	0.82	3.45	0.90
	ET2. I am sure that visiting the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak would do everything to satisfy my demands.	0.79*			3.55	0.79
	ET3. I have great confidence in the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.78*			3.37	0.75
Experiential commitment ( = 0.85)	EC1. My experience with the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak is something that I am committed to.	0.78*	0.60	0.91	3.48	0.78
	EC2. My experience with the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak is very important to me.	0.80*			3.54	0.80
	EC3. My experience with the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak is something I really care about.	0.76*			3.29	0.84
	EC4. My experience with the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak deserves my maximum effort to maintain.	0.77*			3.40	0.77
	EC5. I believe that I am committed to my experience with the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.75*			3.50	0.80
	EC6. I feel emotionally attached to my experience with the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.79*			3.57	0.83
	EC7. Visiting this destination during the COVID-19 outbreak has a great deal of personal meaning for me.	0.78*			3.57	0.86
Experiential connection ( = 0.74 ) Randall et al. (2011)	ECO1. I experience a sense of connection with the service provider in the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.75*	0.56	0.79	3.33	0.87
	ECO2. I experience a sense of connection with the people in the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.73*			3.42	0.80
	ECO3. I experience a sense of connection with the volunteer service providers in the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.76*			3.35	0.90
Future experiential intentions ( = 0.77 )	FEI1. I would be willing to recommend my experience with the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak to my relatives and close friends.	0.81*	0.63	0.84	3.27	0.81
	FEI2. I will continue with my experience with the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak.	0.78*			3.31	0.77
	FEI3. I will evaluate the likelihood of my experience with the destination I visit during the COVID-19 outbreak in the future.	0.80*			3.39	0.83

Note: a. Items with factor loadings of less than 0.50 were deleted based on the measurement scale refinement procedure.

*0.001

Table 3 Descriptive statistics and correlation of study variables.

Constructs	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Secure identity	3.46	0.59	1.00
2. Secure dependence	3.48	0.56	0.59	1.00
3. Secure affect	3.37	0.63	0.49	0.57	1.00
4. Secure social bonding	3.42	0.57	0.51	0.57	0.42	1.00
5. Experiential trust	3.44	0.59	0.63	0.56	0.42	0.51	1.00
6. Experiential commitment	3.46	0.62	0.55	0.70	0.53	0.60	0.46	1.00
7. Experiential connection	3.40	0.56	0.53	0.62	0.59	0.65	0.53	0.58	1.00
8. Future experiential intentions	3.32	0.63	0.59	0.58	0.47	0.43	0.50	0.44	0.46	1.00

Note: Squared correlations of paired constructs are on the off-diagonal.

Table 4 Results of the measurement and structural model tests.

Model	x² / df	P	RMSEA	SRMR	CFI	GFI	IFI	NFI	AGFI
Measurement model	2.42	0.00	0.05	0.04	0.98	0.93	0.97	0.98	0.88
Structural model - Overall model	2.29	0.00	0.04	0.03	0.98	0.94	0.97	0.98	0.89
Recommended value	< 3.00	-	0.08	0.08	> 0.90	> 0.90	> 0.90	> 0.90	0.80

Note: P, p-value; RMSEA, root mean square of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean residual; CFI, comparative fit index; GFI, goodness-of-fit index; IFI, incremental fit index; NFI, normed fit index; AGFI, adjusted goodness-of-fit index.

Table 5 Hypothesis test results.

	Hypothesized path	Standardized estimate	t-value	Hypothesis supported
H1a:	Secure identity ® Experiential trust	0.07	1.60	No
H1b:	Secure dependence ® Experiential trust	0.42***	10.69	Yes
H1c:	Secure affect ® Experiential trust	0.24***	5.73	Yes
H1d	Secure social bonding ® Experiential trust	0.13**	2.71	Yes
H2:	Experiential trust ® Experiential commitment	0.41***	10.90	Yes
H3:	Experiential trust ® Experiential connection	0.53***	12.63	Yes
H4:	Experiential connection ® Experiential commitment	0.37***	9.72	Yes
H5:	Experiential commitment ® Future experiential intentions	0.40***	8.11	Yes
H6:	Experiential trust ® Future experiential intentions	0.36***	6.90	Yes
H7:	Experiential connection ® Future experiential intentions	0.12*	2.43	Yes

Note: *0.05, **0.01, ***0.001.

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Relationships between secure attachment, experiential co-creation and future experiential intentions in the tourism industry: The case of COVID-19

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

1 Introduction

2 Related Concepts And Hypotheses

2.1 Place attachment

2.2 Secure attachment

2.3 Co-creation

2.4 Experiential co-creation

2.5 Future experiential intentions

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Questionnaire and pre-test

3.2 Data collection and procedure

4 Results

4.1 Sample profile

4.2 Exploratory factor analysis (EFA)

4.3 Convergent and discriminant validity of the measures

4.4 Results of the measurement model test

4.5 Results of structural equation analyses

4.6 Research hypothesis test

5 Conclusion And Discussion

6 Implications

6.1 Theoretical implications

6.2 Practical implications

7 Limitations And Future Research Suggestions

Declarations

References

Tables

Status:

Version 1