Emotional Solidarity with Destination Security Forces

Abstract

Immigration crises are of increasing concern around the globe. Although most of these immigrants are fleeing violence and seeking a better life, residents and tourists to these destinations in crisis are concerned about crime and violence associated with an increase in such migration. Consistent with this increase, recent scholarly attention has begun to focus on the dynamics of group relations in the context of immigration crises. Using multigroup partial least squares to examine differences between residents and tourists to the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, we examined the relationships between the perceived effectiveness of the security forces deployed to handle the crisis on emotional solidarity, emotional solidarity on perceived safety, and the relationship between perceived safety on likelihood to recommend the destination. We find a complex relationship for our proposed model where most relationships are significant for destination residents and for migrant tourists.

Keywords

emotional solidarity security forces destination security undocumented immigrants perceived safety winter migrants

Introduction

Importantly, Woosnam and various colleagues developed and tested a measure of emotional solidarity in a number of travel and tourism contexts. These studies conceptualized emotional solidarity as an affective bond among groups of people using the three dimensions of feeling welcomed, emotional closeness, and sympathetic understanding of one group for another. Their research has found, for example, the significance of emotional solidarity of residents with tourists (Woosnam 2011a, 2011b; Woosnam and Norman 2010), of tourists with residents (Woosnam and Aleshinloye 2013) and effects of birding travelers’ emotional solidarity with residents on their destination expenditures (Woosnam, Dudensing, and Walker 2015). This research stream has culminated most recently in a test of the effects of traveler emotional solidarity with international border residents on traveler perceived safety (Woosnam et al. 2015, 265). According to the authors and others they cite, international border regions are often comprised of peoples from different cultures, lifestyles, governments, and economies, which may lead to “hotbeds of criminal activity” including “smuggling weapons, drugs or people.” News stories about the criminal activity appearing in national or international media, the authors suggest, may reach potential travelers to the destination, which may affect traveler perceived safety at the border and intentions to travel there.

Such a hotbed of activity of human trafficking arose in the Rio Grande Valley (RGV) of South Texas in 2014 when as many as 35,000 undocumented immigrants were reported to cross the Mexico border into the United States each month (Hennessy-Fisk and Carcamo 2014), primarily to escape violence and seek a better life. In the wake of what many media outlets frequently called a “border crisis” (Kelly 2014; NBCNews.com 2015), the former Texas Governor deployed 1,000 Texas National Guard troops to the border to help secure the border and stem the crisis. Texas residents’ opinions about the deployment was mixed with some arguing against the deployment as unnecessary while others argued that the forces were needed to improve security and safety in the region (Jervis 2014). Yet others, such as White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, believed the security force deployment was merely a symbolic gesture to give the appearance of action to stem the crisis (Nakamura and Tumulty 2014).

Regardless of the reasons for the deployment, the immigration crisis and the subsequent troop deployment received widespread national and international media attention, with the news likely reaching many of the region’s tourists, especially its significant frequent visitor, winter migrant population. Would these previously loyal migrants to the region now go elsewhere because of the crisis situation? Or would they feel that the security forces would secure the region and continue to return to their winter home in the RGV to which they had likely formed an emotional attachment as a result of their frequent visits (Hall and Williams 2013; Pearce 2012; Simpson and Siguaw 2008)? These questions are important to the region given that as many as 100,000 winter migrants, known as Winter Texans, were in the region in 2014 and spent about $710 million while there (Simpson 2014).

Moreover, considering recent worldwide, high-profile attention to immigration in tourist-heavy countries such as Turkey, Greece, and Germany, scholarly attention has begun to focus on the effects of immigration on tourism flows (Balli, Balli, and Louis 2016), attitudes toward immigrants on visitation intention (Moufakkir 2014), and security strategies aimed at improving perceived safety at tourism destinations (Cruz-Milán et al. 2016; Simpson, Simpson, and Cruz-Milán 2016). However, prior research provides little information about possible tourism effects of a troop deployment, which itself was meant to bring a sense of security to the region that may have been jeopardized as a result of the immigration crisis. In fact, few studies have examined effects of any type of response to a security crisis on tourism (Carlsen and Liburd 2007). Nevertheless, whether migrants—or residents for that matter—feel safer at the destination because of the troop deployment may be determined, in part, by the emotional solidarity of migrants (and residents) with the security forces tasked to protect them, as suggested by the research of Woosnam and various colleagues.

Accordingly, the broad purpose of this research is to test and extend Woosnam and colleagues’ emotional solidarity research by investigating the effects of the emotional solidarity of migrating travelers with deployed security forces on their perceptions of safety at a destination facing a border crisis and the likelihood that the winter migrants will recommend the destination to others. This research is important for a number of reasons. First, much research has found that fear and perceived safety among travelers, even those familiar with a destination, significantly impacts return intention (Fuchs and Reichel 2011; Simpson, Cruz-Milán, and Gressel 2014; Sönmez, Apostolopoulos, and Tarlow 1999; Sönmez and Graefe 1998, to name a few). Thus, an understanding of the impact of a risk-reduction strategy such as the deployment of security forces on tourists will add to our knowledge of how to respond effectively to security crises.

Second, this study examines the role of emotional solidarity of winter migrant travelers and residents with deployed security forces and, consequently, perceived safety; thus, the study tests and extends emotional solidarity research to add to the nascent stream of research regarding emotional solidarity at a destination. Third, only a few studies have examined antecedents or outcomes of emotional solidarity (Woosnam, Dudensing, and Walker 2015; Woosnam et al. 2015). By examining the role of perceived effectiveness of the security forces in providing safety and the outcomes of perceived safety and recommendation likelihood, this research adds to the limited research about emotional solidarity in tourism.

Finally, this research examines the study relationships from the perspectives of both winter migrants and residents to draw a comparison of emotional solidarity perspectives. Fulfillment of this goal should inform the literature about differences in perspectives of residents versus frequent travelers to a destination and should better inform destination managers about the risk reduction, crisis management strategy of increasing a policing presence in response to an immigration crisis. With immigration/migration becoming an increasing worldwide concern, this work is especially timely in its contribution to public policy by showing how the deployment of government forces as a crisis management risk reduction strategy can affect perceived safety of both tourists and residents at a destination.

Theory and Hypothesis Development

Emotional Solidarity

The theory of emotional solidarity (Durkheim [1915] 1995) has been conceptualized as an affective attachment of individuals or groups to one another arising from a specific shared context such as families, religion, racial minorities, national identity, gerontology, and in tourism (c.f. Woosnam et al. 2015). In general, the research on emotional solidarity has explored the interactions of groups and perceptions in different contexts including kindred relationships (Nauck and Becker 2013) and intergenerational relationships (Bengtson and Roberts 1991; Silverstein et al. 2010), among others to suggest that support and resource sharing are key influencers of emotional solidarity ( Bengtson and Roberts 1991; Silverstein et al. 2010).

In a tourism context, residents and tourists at a destination may form an emotional bond through their shared appreciation and affection for the destination, a likelihood that has been explored in various ways by Woosnam and colleagues, who developed and tested an Emotional Solidarity Scale (ESS) (Woosnam and Norman 2010) in a series of studies. Operationalizing the ESS as composed of sympathetic understanding, welcoming visitors, and emotional closeness of one group toward another, the research stream found that residents of a community form an emotional solidarity with area visitors that likely arises because of the positive effects of tourism on the community (Woosnam 2012). Emotional bonds were also found between residents and visitors to a cultural heritage festival (Woosnam and Aleshinloye 2015) and to destination birders (Woosnam, Dudensing, and Walker 2015). In these cases, residents derive an economic benefit from tourists and thus appear to form an emotional solidarity with the group of travelers from whom they benefit. Emotional solidarity between groups is not solely based on economic benefits, however. Group shared beliefs, shared behavior, and interactions were also found to affect the emotional solidarity of residents with travelers (Woosnam and Norman 2010). The reverse is likely true as well where travelers form an emotional solidarity with residents based on shared beliefs, behavior, and interactions (Woosnam and Aleshinloye 2013). Finally, Woosnam et al. (2015) found that emotional solidarity between tourists and residents explained how safe tourists felt at a destination. This finding in particular suggests a tie between emotional bonding of various groups at a destination and felt safety and security.

In the context of a security crisis, then, emotional solidarity theory and prior research findings suggest that security will be the shared belief around which affected groups emotionally bond. Thus, the more security forces are perceived as effective in providing support—in this case safety and security—the stronger the bond people affected by security concerns will likely have with the forces. Emotional solidarity with the security forces and perceived safety will then likely influence perceptions of personal safety and security and, finally, influence behavior or behavioral intentions. These proposed relationships, as shown in Figure 1, specifically test and extends the Woosnam et al. (2015) study. While the Woosnam and colleagues (2015) study examined effects of emotional solidarity of tourists with residents on perceived safety at a destination, our study tests the emotional solidarity of tourists and residents with the security forces deployed to protect the destination and uniquely examines those effects on the likelihood of recommending the destination to others.

Figure 1.

Effects of perceived security force effectiveness and emotional solidarity.

Hypotheses

Just as residents may form an emotional bond with travelers in appreciation of their contribution to the economy and community development (e.g., Woosnam 2012), frequent travelers to a region, who have likely formed an attachment to the destination (Hall and Williams 2013; Pearce 2012), may also form an emotional bond with any group that improves the region, including its safety and security. In the context of this study where security forces were deployed to a region facing an immigration crisis, both frequent travelers to the region and residents will likely form an emotional bond with the forces for several reasons. First, as Woosnam and Norman (2010, 367) interpreted Durkheim’s emotional solidarity work, shared beliefs and behaviors serve to bind groups together and that “religion and other social structures or systems . . . each serving a purpose to respond to negative issues in society and bring about cohesion among individuals.” Thus, security forces deployed as the social system response to security concerns would likely create greater cohesion among all regional constituents, including the security forces, toward the shared goal of regional security.

Second, the migrants are likely to have a strong emotional and cognitive attachment to the destination where attachment becomes an important part of self-identity. Stedman (2006) found that seasonal migrants with a home at a destination were more attached to the place than were traditional residents and Simpson and Siguaw (2008, 178) found that migrants to a region had a strong identity salience with the destination and had “embraced the region as an important part of their self-concept.” This place attachment and identity salience would suggest an appreciation and affinity for groups that aid the community in any way, especially in light of research suggesting that migrants, or nonpermanent residents, have a strong commitment to the community and are willing to participate in community life (Kelly and Hosking 2008). This commitment and solidarity to the community is likely to occur given that “residents who are involved in and attached to their community are more likely to cooperate with the police and hold the police in higher esteem” (Hawdon and Ryan 2003, 58).

Finally, some research from the criminology literature suggests that outgroups, such as tourists, may develop a bond with security forces when the forces are perceived as fair or beneficial. For example, the perceived benefit of police has long been thought to predict attitudes toward police (e.g., Correia, Reisig, and Lovrich 1996; Skogan 2005). As such, when tourists perceive that security forces are present for their benefit, they may be more likely to develop a stronger bond toward them. However, the extent of the emotional solidarity of migrants and residents toward destination security forces may depend on how effective the security forces are perceived to be in providing a safe and secure destination. The safer the troops are believed to make the region, the more welcoming, sympathetic, and close the destinations’ constituents should be to the troops. This logic is in line with previous findings of greater perceived security provided by a policing presence (Bahn 1974; Cordner 1986; Quinton and Morris 2008; Skogan 2009). For example, in his study of a community policing project in Houston, Texas, Skogan (2009) found that the more effective police are perceived to be, the less fearful residents are. Accordingly,

Hypothesis 1: For both tourists and residents, the perceived security force effectiveness will positively and significantly affect perceived safety.

Hypothesis 2: For both tourists and residents, the perceived security force effectiveness will positively and significantly affect the dimensions of emotional solidarity: H2a, Feeling welcomed; H2b, Emotional closeness; and H2c, Sympathetic understanding.

The emotional solidarity of travelers and residents to a destination with security forces deployed to secure the region should make both groups feel safer. However, few studies have examined outcomes of emotional solidarity (Woosnam et al. 2015) with a few notable exceptions. Closely related to this research was a study by Woosnam et al. (2015) that examined effects of the emotional solidarity of tourists with residents on perceived safety in two destination areas, the Lower Rio Grande Valley (LRGV) and the Big Bend region. The authors found that tourists in the LRGV felt less safe than those in the other destination examined; but, that emotional solidarity of tourists with residents explained 15 percent of the variance of the perceived safety construct for the LRGV region and .03 percent of the variance for the Big Bend region. The ‘feeling welcomed’ dimension of emotional solidarity was the only significant dimension for tourists in both regions whereby tourists who felt more welcomed by the residents, felt safer. Although travelers may feel a special bond with residents because they are both facing the same situation, residents would not normally have the direct responsibility of providing security for the region as would security forces, which might explain why the Woosnam and colleagues’ findings were limited. Nevertheless, residents and travelers to the region who feel an emotional solidarity with the security forces whose purpose is to secure the region, should feel safer. Thus,

Hypothesis 3: For both tourists and residents, the emotional solidarity dimensions H3a, Feeling welcomed; H3b, Emotional closeness; and H3c, Sympathetic understanding, formed for the security forces will significantly and positively affect perceived safety at the destination.

Based on logic and research, perceived safety at a destination will likely have a number of negative effects as previously found in tourism research, especially on travel intentions (e.g., Sönmez and Graefe 1998; Floyd and Pennington-Gray 2004; George 2003; McKercher and Hui 2004; and Reisinger and Mavondo 2005). As a destination loyalty measure, a limited number of studies have examined effects of perceived safety/risk on destination recommendation, which is an appropriate destination loyalty measure for both tourists and residents. For example, stating that “existing research has not examined the influence of tourist perceptions toward crime-safety and intentions to revisit and recommend a specific visitor attraction,” George (2010, 813) examined those factors based on different visitor types to a tourist attraction in Cape Town, South Africa. His study found that more frequent visitors to the destination felt less safe and were more likely to warn others of destination crime. He suggests the cause may be that frequent visitors are more aware of local signage about crime and safety and the presence of Safety Officers. Other studies, such as Milman, Jones, and Bach’s (1999) study of security devices effects and Yüksel and Yüksel’s (2007) study of internal and external risk at a shopping destination, found significant effects of perceived safety/risk on recommendation or loyalty measures that included recommendation items. Thus, residents and travelers feeling unsafe at a destination will be less likely to recommend the destination to others:

Hypothesis 4: For both tourists and residents, perceived safety will significantly and positively affect the likelihood of recommending the destination to others.

The proposed relationships in this study effectively constitute a multi-mediator model whereby the emotional solidarity dimensions are likely to have direct effects on perceived safety as hypothesized previously, but may also mediate the perceived security effectiveness → perceived safety relationship. Thus, the indirect effects of emotional solidarity should also be examined, especially in light of recent calls in the academic literature to examine both direct and indirect effects (e.g., Rucker et al. 2011; Preacher and Hayes 2008; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010). Stated formally,

Hypothesis 5: For both tourists and residents, the emotional solidarity dimensions, H5a Feeling welcomed; H5b, Emotional closeness; and H5c, Sympathetic understanding, will significantly mediate the relationship between perceived security effectiveness and perceived safety.

Although each of the above hypothesized relationships should be significant and in the same direction for both residents and tourists, effects from the deployment of security forces may be stronger for destination residents than for frequent tourists to the destination. Although frequency of visits by tourists and duration of residency have generally been found to increase place attachment (Brown, Perkins, and Brown 2003; Gu and Ryan 2008), the perspectives of frequent visitors toward the destination is likely different from that of residents (Kaltenborn and Williams 2002). The differences in perspectives are primarily due to the fact that frequent travelers to a destination generally derive their destination attachment through “escape from day-to-day cares” whereas residents have place-attachment based on “social networks and community meanings” (Stedman 2006, 201). Moreover, frequent travelers can readily decide not to return to the destination for many reasons, including a decline in perceived safety at the destination (Hall and Williams 2013) while residents may not have the luxury of moving. Given these findings, we suggest that residents are more likely than frequent travelers to develop a stronger emotional bond with the security forces charged with ensuring their safety. Thus,

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between perceived security force effectiveness and perceived safety will be significantly stronger for residents than for winter migrants.

Hypothesis 7: The relationship between perceived security force effectiveness and the dimensions of emotional solidarity, H7a, Feeling welcomed; H7b, Emotional closeness; and H7c, Sympathetic understanding, will be significantly stronger for residents than for winter migrants.

Hypothesis 8: The effects of emotional solidarity dimensions, H8a, Feeling welcomed; H8b, Emotional closeness; and H8c, Sympathetic understanding, on perceived safety will be significantly stronger for residents than for winter migrants.

Hypothesis 9: The effects of perceived safety on the likelihood of recommending the destination to others will be significantly stronger for residents than for winter migrants.

Method

Sample and Data Collection

Self-selected winter migrants to the RGV are surveyed biennially to estimate their economic impact on the region. These studies routinely invite respondents to serve on a panel for research purposes. Respondents for our study were recruited from this panel of winter migrants in the fall of 2014, just after the summer when the security forces were deployed to the RGV. All panel members recruited since 2010 were sent an e-mail invitation to participate in this study with a follow-up e-mail sent about three weeks later. From the 1,130 unduplicated e-mails sent, 111 were returned as undeliverable. In total, 1,009 valid e-mails yielded usable responses from 413 panel members who were self-identified winter migrants. Destination residents were also recruited for the same survey by promoting a link to the online survey through a news release and interviews with various media outlets including newspaper, TV, and radio. As a result, 251 self-classified residents completed usable responses to the survey. Thus, the final study sample consisted of 413 winter migrants and 251 residents. The demographic profiles of both respondent types are presented in Table 1 and show that the resident respondents were younger, more ethnically diverse, more likely male, and better educated and had higher household income levels than the winter migrant respondents.

Table 1.

Demographic Profile of Respondents.

Variable	Residents(n = 251)	Migrants(n = 413)
Gender, %
Male	58.9	54.5
Female	41.1	45.5
Income, %
≤$39,999	18.4	14.8
$40,000–$69,999	30.8	47.8
$70,000–$99,999	22.6	24.4
$100,000–$149,999	18.8	10.7
≥$150,000	9.4	2.3
Education, %
<High school	0.8	0.2
High school/GED	8.0	12.0
Some college, no degree	33.5	29.3
Associate’s degree	08.4	15.9
Bachelor’s degree	23.1	18.1
Graduate/professional degree	26.3	24.4
Ethnicity, %
White/Caucasian	53.7	97.3
Hispanic	39.3	1.2
Other	7.0	1.5
Average age	53.8	69.9

All scale measures and measurement model statistics are provided in Table 2. The perceived safety (SAFE) measure used in this study consists of four items and appeared in previous tourism research (Simpson, Cruz-Milán, and Gressel 2014) and is analogous to the absence of fear at a destination. Emotional solidarity was assessed using Woosnam and Norman’s (2010) Emotional Solidarity Scale (ESS), which consists of three dimensions: welcoming, closeness, and sympathy. The scale items were adapted to this study’s context of residents’ and migrants’ emotional attachment to the security forces. For example, Woosnam and Norman’s (2010) emotional closeness items “I feel close to some visitors I have met in Carteret Co.” and “I have made friends with some visitors in Carteret Co.” were adapted to read “I feel close to some of the security forces I have met in the RGV” and “I have made friends with some of the security forces in the RGV,” respectively. Recommendation (REC) likelihood was assessed using the single-item measure as widely used in marketing and tourism research. The perceived effectiveness of the security forces in providing security (SFEff) measure was uniquely developed for this study after reviewing existing perceived safety scales since no existing appropriate measure was identified in the literature. All study items except the 10-point return recommendation item were assessed by asking how strongly respondents agreed with the statements shown in Table 2 on a 5-point Likert scale.

Table 2.

Scale Measures^a and Measure Statistics^b.

Measure/Statistics	Measure Items	Factor Loading	Means
Measure/Statistics	Measure Items	Factor Loading	Residents	Migrants
Security forces effectivenessCR = 0.892AVE = 0.734	The RGV is much safer now with the increase in security forces.The crime rate has declined since the increase in security forces in the RGV	.869.870	3.062.57	3.092.75
Security forces effectivenessCR = 0.892AVE = 0.734	I am much less likely to be a victim of crime in the RGV with the added security forces.	.830	2.78	3.00
ESS, ClosenessCR = 0.961AVE = 0.924	I have made friends with some of the security forces in the RGV.I feel close to some of the security forces I have met in the RGV.	.962.961	2.652.54	2.332.37
ESS, SympatheticCR = 0.896AVE = 0.684	I understand the security forces in the RGV.I feel affection toward RGV security forces.I identify with security forces in the RGV.I have a lot in common with the security forces in the RGV	.741.822.903.833	3.693.173.342.98	3.303.153.102.83
ESS, WelcomingCR = 0.90AVE = 0.695	I appreciate the contribution that security forces make to the local economy.I treat the security forces fairly in the RGV.I am proud to welcome the security forces to the RGV.I appreciate the benefits associated with the security forces coming to the RGV.	.840	4.00	3.75
		.647	3.94	3.73
		.899	3.98	3.76
		.920	4.00	3.76
Perceived safety	I feel safe in the RGV.	.923	3.24	3.90
CR = 0.925	I feel safe walking around during the daytime in the RGV.	.825	3.56	4.09
AVE = 0.755	I feel safe walking around during the nighttime in the RGV	.891	2.50	2.71
	The RGV is safer than most places in the U.S.	.833	2.73	2.88

Note: ESS = Emotional Solidarity Scale; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted; RGV = Rio Grande Valley.

The Emotional Solidarity Scale is taken from Woosnam and Norman (2010).

Factor loadings, CRs, and Cronbach’s alphas are for the full data set.

Results

Measurement Model

Partial least squares multigroup analysis (PLS-MGA) was performed using SmartPLS 3.2.2 (Ringle, Wende, and Becker 2015). PLS was chosen because the goal of this research is, in part, to identify key driver constructs, because this research is a test of the extension of the existing emotional solidarity scale, and because of the relatively small sample size of the resident sample (Hair et al. 2014). Further, PLS-MGA was used to test study hypotheses and to examine differences in path coefficients by group. Testing differences between groups such as countries and cultures has been identified as needed in international marketing research (Henseler, Ringle, and Sinkovics 2009) and in tourism research.

First, the full data set was analyzed to assess the measurement model as specified by Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011) and Hair et al. (2014). These authors recommend using the bootstrapping process as an indicator of measurement model fit and provide the following “rules of thumb” for evaluating reflective measurement models: composite reliabilities >0.70 as a measure of internal consistency reliability; outer loadings >0.70 as a measure of indicator reliability; average variances extracted (AVEs) >0.50 as a measure of convergent validity and outer loadings higher than all cross loadings with other constructs and the Fornell–Larcker criterion as measures of discriminant validity. More recently, Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2015) recommend using heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratios of variable correlations as a measure of discriminant validity with a conservative cutoff value of 0.85 and a liberal cutoff value of 0.90.

Following these guidelines, after deleting two items from the security safety scale, all factor loadings in our study were above the required 0.70 and each were higher than its cross loadings as needed for evidence of internal reliability. The average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was well above 0.50 to indicate convergent validity, and the composite reliabilities and Cronbach’s alphas were all above 0.70 as indicators of internal consistency reliability. These statistics along with the items for all measures are shown in Table 2. Discriminant validity for scale measures was provided by the Fornell–Larker criterion and by the HTMT ratios, all provided in Table 3. All AVEs were greater than the squared correlations of each construct as required (Fornell and Larker 1981; Rabl 2010) and the HTMT ratios were all well below the recommended 0.85 maximum except for the ESS welcoming variable, which was 0.91. This statistic is just above the 0.90 more liberal HTMT recommended cutoff; however, all items in the measure were retained in the analysis because the scale has been previously tested in a number of other studies. Finally, the measurement model for the residents and for the migrants were separately evaluated by using the same validity and reliability criteria used previously and found appropriate for further analysis.

Table 3.

Discriminant Validity of Constructs.

	Close	Sympathy	Welcome	SAFE	REC	SFEff
Fornell–Larcker criterion
Close	0.961
Sympathy	0.512	0.827
Welcome	0.376	0.736	0.833
SAFE	−0.068	−0.184	−0.185	0.869
REC	−0.105	−0.142	−0.127	0.633	1.00
SFEff	0.268	0.363	0.483	0.238	0.217	0.856
Heterotrait–Monotrait ratios
Close
Sympathy	0.580
Welcome	0.432	0.875
SAFE	0.073	0.208	0.208
REC	0.109	0.153	0.142	0.665
SFEff	0.305	0.428	0.549	0.272	0.24

Hypothesis Testing

The structural model of hypothesized effects was also tested using SmartPLS. Structural models are evaluated in PLS by examining the R² values, testing the significance levels of path coefficients with bootstrapping, examining the predictive relevance using a blindfolding technique, and using mulitgroup analysis where populations are heterogeneous, as is the case with this study (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011; Henseler, Hubona, and Ray 2016). Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2011, 147) note that R² values of 0.75, 0.50, and 0.25 indicate substantial, moderate, and weak effects, respectively, but that values of 0.20 “are considered high in disciplines such as consumer behavior.” Recent research suggests that the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) may also be used to test the approximate model fit, where a value of <0.08 indicates an acceptable overall model fit (Henseler, Hubona, and Ray 2016). The significance levels of proposed variable relationships were determined using PLS-MGA by setting the bootstrapping procedure to 5,000 subsamples, selecting “no sign change” and the “bias-corrected and accelerated bootstrap” confidence interval method. The R² values by group are shown in Figure 2, and path coefficients and their significance levels are provided in Table 4. In our study, the significant R² values and path coefficients and the SRMR value of 0.06 provide evidence of a good fit of the structural model to the data and a cross-validated redundancy Q² value larger than 0 is an indicator of predictive relevance.

Figure 2.

Effects of perceived security force effectiveness and emotional solidarity.

Table 4.

Hypothesis-Testing Results.

Hypotheses	Residents				Winter Migrants				Residents vs. Migrants
Hypotheses	Path Coefficients	SD	t Value	p Value	Path Coefficients	SD	t Value	p Value	Hypotheses	p Value
Hypothesis 1. SFEff → SAFE	0.41	0.06	6.42	0.00	0.37	0.07	5.64	0.00	Hypothesis 6	0.32
Hypothesis 2a. SFEff → Welcome	0.50	0.05	9.50	0.00	0.47	0.05	9.99	0.00	Hypothesis 7a	0.34
Hypothesis 2b. SFEff → Close	0.37	0.06	6.05	0.00	0.21	0.06	3.62	0.00	Hypothesis 7b	0.02
Hypothesis 2c. SFEff → Sympathy	0.38	0.06	6.17	0.00	0.38	0.05	7.11	0.00	Hypothesis 7c	0.46
Hypothesis 3a. Welcome → SAFE	−0.46	0.08	5.55	0.00	−0.15	0.08	1.98	0.05	Hypothesis 8a	1.00
Hypothesis 3b. Close → SAFE	−0.06	0.07	0.96	0.34	0.11	0.06	1.95	0.05	Hypothesis 8b	0.98
Hypothesis 3c. Sympathy → SAFE	−0.11	0.09	1.27	0.21	−0.07	0.08	0.91	0.36	Hypothesis 8c	0.63
Hypothesis 4. SAFE → REC	0.69	0.04	17.34	0.00	0.62	0.04	17.40	0.00	Hypothesis 9	0.09

Note: SD = standard deviation.

Results in Table 4 indicate that security force effectiveness had a significant and positive effect on perceived safety for both residents (t_residents = 6.42, p =.00) and for migrants (t_migrants = 5.64, p = .00) in support of hypothesis 1 and on all dimension of emotional solidarity for both residents and migrants, in support of hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c. Of the three ESS dimensions, SFEff explained the greatest variable variance on the welcoming dimension (R²_residents = .25, R²_migrants = .22), followed by the sympathy dimension (R²_residents = .15, R²_migrants = .14). SFEff contributed the least effects on the closeness dimension of ESS (R²_residents = .14, R²_migrants = .04). In fact, the R² of SFEff on closeness was not significant for the winter migrant group (p = .08). Not surprisingly, these results suggest that both residents and migrants are welcoming and reasonably sympathetic to the security forces they perceive to provide them with a safe and secure region.

The R² values for the SAFE variable were .27 for residents and .12 for migrants which, at least for the resident sample, is considered high for consumer research (Hair, Ringle, and Sarstedt 2011). The effects of welcoming on SAFE were negative and significant for both residents and migrants (t_residents = 5.55, p =.00; t_migrants = 1.98, p = .05). The more welcoming both groups were of the security forces, the less safe they felt. Effects of closeness on SAFE were significant only for migrants, however (t_migrants = 1.95, p = .05), and the effects were positive. The sympathy dimension had no significant effect on SAFE for either residents or migrants. These results provide support for hypothesis 3a, but in the opposite direction; partial support for hypothesis 3b; and no support for hypothesis 3c.

Because SFEff had a direct and significant effect on SAFE and on each of the ESS dimensions while only welcoming had a direct effect on SAFE for both residents and migrants, most of the effects of SAFE could be explained by SFEff and not by emotional solidarity with the forces. To test the strength of effects, a separate analysis was conducted to examine only the paths from the ESS dimensions to SAFE to find that the R² value for residents was .15 but was .01 for migrants, suggesting that emotional solidarity of migrants with the security forces was not particularly important in their feeling safe at the destination. Instead, the direct effect of SFEff on SAFE explained much more of the variance in the SAFE construct than did emotional solidarity. Also, as shown in Table 4, the path from SAFE to recommendation likelihood was significant for both residents (t_residents = 17.34, p =.00) and for migrants (t_migrants = 17.40, p = .00) and explained a significant portion of the recommendation variable variance (R²_residents = .47, R²_migrants = .38), providing support for hypothesis 4.

To further explore the role of the ESS dimensions in the model and to test hypothesis 5, the ESS dimensions were examined for mediation or indirect effects following the guidelines provided by several articles (e.g., Rucker et al. 2011; Preacher and Hayes 2008; Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010). Following these guidelines is especially important in this research where indirect paths of the mediating variables have opposite signs, resulting in a suppression effect. Rucker et al. (2011, 366) explain that suppressor variables undermine the total effect of a relationship by its omission: “thus omission of the suppressor might lead the total effect to appear small or nonsignificant.” Suppression effects indicate an “inconsistent mediation” and “negative confounding” (MacKinnon, Krull, and Lockwood 2000) or competitive mediation (Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010) and is theoretically important to examine because mediating relationships determined as complementary or competitive indicate “the possible existence of some omitted second mediator that can be pursued in future research” (Zhao, Lynch, and Chen 2010, 201).

The mediation analysis was conducted by following the steps detailed by Zhao, Lynch, and Chen (2010) and using the Preacher-Hayes PROCESS macro for SPSS (see www.processmacro.org) as recommended. SAFE was set as the outcome variable, SFEff as the independent variable, and the ESS welcome, closeness, and sympathy dimensions as the M variables. The 95%, bias-corrected confidence interval results using 5,000 bootstrap samples are provided in Table 5. According to guidelines, indirect effects are significant if a value of zero is not contained within the confidence intervals; thus, only the indirect effects of the welcoming dimension for residents and the closeness dimension for migrants were significant. A pairwise contrast of these significant indirect effects, also shown in Table 5, indicates that the magnitude of the indirect effect of the welcome dimension is significantly different from the other ESS dimensions’ indirect effects for residents, and the magnitude of the indirect effects of the closeness dimension is significantly different from the indirect effects of the welcoming dimension for migrants. These results provide partial support for hypotheses 5a and 5b but no support for hypothesis 5c.

Table 5.

Mediation Effects Bootstrapping Results.

	Residents				Migrants
	Indirect Effect	SE	Lower CI	Upper CI	Indirect Effect	SE	Lower CI	Upper CI
Hypothesis 5a, Welcome	−0.2419	0.0610	−0.3791	−0.1362	−0.0690	0.0380	−0.1473	0.0042
Hypothesis 5b, Close	−0.0178	0.0302	−0.0829	0.0379	0.0274	0.0165	0.0035	0.0682
Hypothesis 5c, Sympathy	−0.0559	0.0433	−0.1540	0.0194	−0.0368	0.0323	−0.1090	0.0206
Total	−0.3155	0.0571	−0.4389	−0.2121	−0.0784	0.0341	−0.1514	−0.0166
Welcome vs. Close	−0.2241	0.0660	−0.3681	−0.1050	−0.0964	0.0426	−0.1884	−0.0194
Welcome vs. Sympathy	−0.1860	0.0904	−0.3785	−0.0174	−0.0321	0.0603	−0.1460	0.0933
Close vs. Sympathy	0.0381	0.0610	−0.0801	0.1613	0.0643	0.0406	−0.0055	0.1566

Note: Bias-corrected confidence intervals; 5,000 bootstrap samples; 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Boldfaced intervals indicate significant indirect effects. SE = standard error.

Finally, a comparison of the model results for residents versus migrants found only one significant difference as shown in Table 4: the effects of SFEff on closeness. Residents appear more likely to feel close to the security forces they believe will make them feel safer. Although the differences were not significant, almost all path coefficients were higher for residents than for migrants and all R² values for residents were greater than those for migrants as shown in Figure 1. Nevertheless, results provide no support for hypotheses 6, 7a, 7c, 8a–c, and 9 but support for 7b. A summary of the results of all hypothesis tests are provided in Table 6.

Table 6.

Hypotheses Test Summary Results.

Direct Effects	Hypotheses Supported?		DifferenceHypotheses	HypothesisSupported?
Direct Effects	Residents	Migrants	DifferenceHypotheses	HypothesisSupported?
Hypothesis 1. SFEff → SAFE	Yes	Yes	Hypothesis 6	No
Hypothesis 2a. SFEff → Welcome	Yes	Yes	Hypothesis 7a	No
Hypothesis 2b. SFEff → Close	Yes	Yes	Hypothesis 7b	Yes
Hypothesis 2c. SFEff → Sympathy	Yes	Yes	Hypothesis 7c	No
Hypothesis 3a. Welcome → SAFE	Yes (–)	Yes (–)	Hypothesis 8a	No
Hypothesis 3b. Close → SAFE	No	Yes	Hypothesis 8b	No
Hypothesis 3c. Sympathy → SAFE	No	No	Hypothesis 8c	No
Hypothesis 4. SAFE → REC	Yes	Yes	Hypothesis 9	No
Indirect effects
Hypothesis 5a. Welcoming	Yes	No
Hypothesis 5b. Closeness	No	Yes
Hypothesis 5c. Sympathy	No	No

Discussion and Implications

Study Contributions

The Rio Grande Valley region of far South Texas was subjected to a surge in security forces sent to the region by the State of Texas to secure its borders from an influx in undocumented immigrants widely considered an immigration crisis. Amid much local debate about whether the troops were necessary to secure the region and what their effects on frequent tourists to the region—the winter migrants—might be, this study explored the relationships of emotional solidarity, perceived safety provided by the security forces, and perceived safety in the region among winter migrants and residents at the destination in crisis. Thus, this investigation addresses the question about whether an emotional bond with the security forces would impact feelings of safety and security in the region for both frequent visitors and residents of the destination.

By doing so, this research adds to the nascent research on emotional solidarity by uniquely examining an antecedent to emotional solidarity and an outcome destination recommendation that had not been previously explored. As Woosnam et al. (2015) lament, few studies have considered emotional solidarity as an antecedent of other study constructs. In addition, our study adds to the considerable body of literature about differences between residents at a destination and frequent visitors there. Findings from the environmental psychology and tourism literatures have generally found that residents and frequent visitors form attachments to a place (e.g., Hall and Williams 2013; Lewicka 2011; Stedman 2006) but that the two groups have “differences in values, preferences, interests, and lifestyles” (Kaltenborn and Williams 2002, 189). Our research, however, found only one significant difference between the two groups: the effects of security force–provided safety and the closeness dimension of emotional solidarity, with the residents more likely to be close to the security forces as a result of their perceived effectiveness. This finding may be attributable to the timing of the study. This research was conducted in the fall immediately after the security forces were deployed in the summer, and many of the migrants would not have arrived in the region yet so might not have seen or interacted with security force members. Finally, by examining effects of a governmental response to a crisis, this study adds to the dearth of research about crisis management risk-reduction strategies (Carlsen and Liburd 2007).

In summary, the study found that perceptions of the effectiveness of the security forces in reducing crime and securing the region had a significant impact on the emotional solidarity for both residents and winter migrants with the security forces. This finding suggests support of emotional solidarity theory, whereby people facing a specific situation form an emotional bond with a group that shares similar beliefs and behaviors (Woosnam and Aleshinloye 2013; Woosnam and Norman 2010), which in this case is security.

However, the study also found that emotional solidarity with the security forces had only limited effects on feelings of safety at the destination and that some of those effects were negative. Somewhat in line with the finding of Woosnam et al. (2015) that only the welcoming dimension of emotional solidarity of travelers with residents significantly affected perceived safety, welcoming was the only significant ESS dimension found to affect perceived safety for both residents and migrants in our study; however, the effects were negative. The more welcoming residents and migrants were of the security forces, the less safe they felt at the destination. This is likely explained by the reason the security forces were at the destination in the first place—to secure the border from a surge in undocumented immigrants. If the destination was perceived as safe and secure, the security forces would not be needed. Thus, the security forces may actually signal the need for security. The closeness dimension was also significant in affecting perceived safety, but only for the migrant group. The more likely the migrants were to have close alliances with the security forces, the safer they felt in the destination.

Word-of-mouth (WOM) communications or recommendations are widely acknowledged to be the least expensive and most effective form of promotion for product selection, including destination selection (e.g., Confente 2015; Litvin, Goldsmith, and Pan 2008), where negative WOM may damage a destination’s image (Morgan, Pritchard, and Piggott 2003). This means that reassurances of destination safety from family and friends may be especially important for destinations in the midst of a security crisis that is receiving extensive negative media attention that could deter potential travelers to the destination. Thus, this study underscores the criticality of perceived safety at a destination on recommendation likelihood. Just as suggested by some researchers (Sönmez and Graefe 1998; Pizam 1999) and tested by others (e.g., George 2003, 2010), perceived safety and security contributes significantly to the likelihood that residents and travelers will, or will not, recommend the destination to family and friends or return.

Practical Implications

From a public policy perspective, this research has a few significant implications. First and foremost are the findings related to the deployment of security forces as a risk reduction strategy for a destination in crisis. While the deployment of the troops to the Rio Grande Valley is considered by some to be a symbolic gesture (Nakamura and Tumulty 2014), this study found, not surprisingly, that the more effective the security forces were perceived to be, the safer people felt in the region. Although the study found that the effectiveness of the security forces leads to increased levels of emotional solidarity, the emotional solidarity, in and of itself, did not improve feelings of safety in the destination. Conversely, being more welcoming of troops was associated with feeling less safe. Although these findings could be the result of the very limited nature of our sample and sample size and may differ from other samples, the findings indicate that destinations need not implement measures to enhance emotional solidarity of residents or travelers with security forces to enhance perceived safety at the destination, but rather should focus on communicating the effectiveness of a destination’s security forces in quelling crime and ensuring safety.

For the RGV, the crime statistics are actually quite low compared to other similarly sized areas across the United States. For example, according to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, McAllen (a city in the lower RGV Texas) had 1 murder and 38 aggravated assaults while the similarly sized city of Beaumont (a city in Texas as well) had 11 murders and 394 aggravated assaults (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2013). The regional destination management organizations could, for example, focus promotions on these actual, comparatively low crime statistics and on the positive characteristics of the destination. Some of the positive characteristics of the RGV include the great subtropical weather, the beach, the numerous outdoor activities, and the binational culture steeped in family values.

For this study, the closeness dimension of emotional solidarity was found to be positively related to perceived safety for the migrant tourist group. Consistent with intergroup contact theory and research that strongly indicates that increased contact between groups reduces prejudice in various contexts (Pettigrew and Tropp 2006), greater closeness might be achieved by placing the security forces in close contact with the winter migrants. Destination management organizations (DMOs) could host information session—both virtually and in-person—where security forces personnel meet and greet winter migrants. Additionally, for both residents and travelers, DMOs should promote the positive benefits the security forces bring to the community other than security, including the economic benefits that come to the community from the added expenditures of the approximate 1,000 troops and their families on housing, food, and other routine purchases.

The criticality of perceived safety on recommendation likelihood is another significant finding of this study. As described previously, considerable research suggests that concerns about fear and safety affect destination image, likelihood to recommend, and likelihood to revisit, among others. For example, Simpson, Cruz-Milán, and Gressel (2014) found that perceptions of worsening crime increased fear and return intentions, and Reisinger and Mavondo (2005) found that perceived safety influenced traveler intentions to travel. Thus, DMOs should work to ensure that residents and tourists alike feel safe at the destination as a necessary condition for positive destination recommendations.

The results of this study might also have implications for DMOs in other countries, considering the recent immigration crises seen globally. However, study findings and recommendations should be interpreted with caution given the specific characteristics of this study’s context and limitations associated with this sample, especially the resident sample that was relatively small. Nevertheless, our finding that perceived security force effectiveness has significant effects on all three dimensions of emotional solidarity suggests that DMOs should take steps to ensure both residents and tourists in tourist destinations recognize that security forces (or other security measures) are present to make them feel safe.

Limitations and Future Research

The major limitation of this work relates to the study’s samples. For the tourist portion of this study, the sample consists primarily of retired, older, white tourists visiting a familiar place who likely have a strong attachment to the area (Pearce 2012; Simpson and Siguaw 2008). As predominantly senior citizens, these visitors might be more concerned with their safety than are other travelers (Kazeminia, Del Chiappa, and Jafari 2015). Thus, future research should examine the relationships between emotional solidarity and perceived safety among other types of traveler groups. For the resident portion of the study, the study sample consisted of residents of one relatively small border region who happened to be exposed to the media in which stories about the survey appeared. Consequently, the characteristics of the residents sample may not be similar to those of residents who were not exposed to the media stories or to those of residents of other border regions; thus, results are not generalizable to any other residential group even though the results obtained in this study are generally consistent with theory and previous research in other contexts.

Future Research

With few studies having examined antecedents and consequences of emotional solidarity, numerous opportunities for further research exists in various contexts. As Woosnam et al. (2015, 271) suggests, “a host of other variables likely exist that may serve to explain . . . [perceived safety].” For example, future research could explore the role of media in developing emotional solidarity with various groups and peoples and emotional solidarity with other groups outside of the traditional locals or tourists could be examined. The level of tourism development at a destination could also be an important factor in affecting emotional security and perceived safety and security at the destination, a topic worthy of future research. In addition, future research could examine emotional solidarity of international travelers with destination residents, security forces, or other groups present at the destination that might impact the travel decision or stay satisfaction. Such a focus in future research has significant implications for both theory and practice as managers and practitioners alike are concerned about how to bring together different groups to improve tourism and a sense of community.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and the Business and Tourism Research Center in conducting this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Joseph J. Simpson is a PhD student at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. His primary research interests include crisis management, security management, strategy, and leadership.

Penny M. Simpson is a Professor of Marketing and Director of the Business and Tourism Research Center at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley. Her research has appeared in numerous journals including Journal of Marketing, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Tourism Management, Journal of Travel Research, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Strategic Marketing, and Industrial Marketing Management.

References

Bahn

1974. “The Reassurance Factor in Police Patrol.” Criminology 123:338–45.

Balli

H. O.

Louis

R. J.

2016. “The Impacts of Immigrants and Institutions on Bilateral Tourism Flows.” Tourism Management 52:221–29.

Bengtson

V. L.

Roberts

R. E.

1991. “Intergenerational Solidarity in Aging Families: An Example of Formal Theory Construction.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 534:856–70.

Brown

Perkins

D. D.

Brown

2003. “Place Attachment in a Revitalizing Neighborhood: Individual and Block Levels of Analysis.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 233:259–71.

Carlsen

J. C.

Liburd

J. J.

2007. “Developing a Research Agenda for Tourism Crisis Management, Market Recovery and Communications.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 23 (2-4): 265–76.

Confente

2015. “Twenty-Five Years of Word-of-Mouth Studies: A Critical Review of Tourism Research.” International Journal of Tourism Research 17 (6): 613–24.

Cordner

G. W.

1986. “Fear of Crime and The Police: An Evaluation of a Fear-Reduction Strategy.” Journal of Police Science and Administration 14 (3): 223–33.

Correia

M. E.

Reisig

M. D.

Lovrich

N. P.

1996. “Public Perceptions of State Police: An Analysis of Individual-Level and Contextual Variables.” Journal of Criminal Justice 24 (1): 17–28.

Cruz-Milán

Simpson

J. J.

Simpson

P. M.

Choi

2016. “Reassurance or Reason for Concern: Security Forces as a Crisis Management Strategy.” Tourism Management 56:114–25.

10.

Durkheim

(1915) 1995. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. New York: Free Press.

11.

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2013. “Crime in The United States 2013: Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report.” https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-january-june-2013/tables/table-4-cuts/table_4_offenses_reported_to_law_enforcement_by_state_oklahoma_through_wisconsin_2013.xls (accessed February 26, 2016).

12.

Floyd

M. F.

Pennington-Gray

2004. “Profiling Risk Perceptins of Tourists.” Annals of Tourism Research 31 (4): 1051–54.

13.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18 (1): 39–50.

14.

Fuchs

Reichel

2011. “An Exploratory Inquiry into Destination Risk Perceptions and Risk Reduction Strategies of First Time vs. Repeat Visitors to a Highly Volatile Destination.” Tourism Management 32 (2): 266–76.

15.

George

2010. “Visitor Perceptions of Crime-Safety and Attitudes towards Risk: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, Cape Town.” Tourism Management 31 (6): 806–15.

16.

George

2003. “Tourist’s Perceptions of Safety and Security while Visiting Cape Town.” Tourism Management 24 (5): 575–85.

17.

Ryan

2008. “Place Attachment, Identity and Community Impacts of Tourism—The Case of a Beijing Hutong.” Tourism Management 29 (4): 637–47.

18.

Hall

C. M.

Williams

eds. 2013. Tourism and Migration: New Relationships between Production and Consumption, Vol. 65. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

19.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

Sarstedt

2014. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling PLS-SEM. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

20.

Hair

J. F.

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

2011. “PLS-SEM: Indeed a Silver Bullet.” Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 19 (2): 139–52.

21.

Hawdon

Ryan

2003. “Police-Resident Interactions and Satisfaction with Police: An Empirical Test of Community Policing Assertions.” Criminal Justice Policy Review 14 (1): 55–74.

22.

Hennessy-Fisk

Carcamo

2014. “In Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, a Seemingly Endless Surge of Immigrants.” Los Angeles Times, June 13. http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-texas-border-chaos-20140614-story.html#page=1 (accessed January 22, 2015).

23.

Henseler

Hubona

Ray

P. A.

2016. “Using PLS Path Modeling in New Technology Research: Updated Guidelines.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 116 (1): 2–20.

24.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sarstedt

2015. “A New Criterion for Assessing Discriminant Validity in Variance-Based Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43 (1): 115–35.

25.

Henseler

Ringle

C. M.

Sinkovics

R. R.

2009. “The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing.” Advances in International Marketing 20 (1): 277–319.

26.

Jervis

2014. “National Guard at Border Gets Mixed Reviews in Texas.” USA Today, July 31. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/31/national-guard-border-immigrants/13394795/ (accessed March 1, 2015).

27.

Kaltenborn

B. P.

Williams

D. R.

2002. “The Meaning of Place: Attachments to Femundsmarka National Park, Norway, among Tourists and Locals.” Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift 56 (3): 189–98.

28.

Kazeminia

Del Chiappa

Jafari

2015. “Seniors’ Travel Constraints and Their Coping Strategies.” Journal of Travel Research 54 (1): 80–93.

29.

Kelly

2014. “U.S. Can’t Declare Victory in Border Crisis, Official Says.” USA Today, September 16. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/09/16/alejandro-mayorkas-border-crisis/15732731/ (accessed January 21).

30.

Kelly

Hosking

2008. “Nonpermanent Residents, Place Attachment, and ‘Sea Change’ Communities.” Environment and Behavior 40 (4): 575–94.

31.

Lewicka

2011. “Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40 Years?” Journal of Environmental Psychology 31:207–30.

32.

Litvin

S. W.

Goldsmith

R. E.

Pan

2008. “Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Hospitality and Tourism Management.” Tourism Management 29 (3): 458–68.

33.

MacKinnon

D. P.

Krull

J. L.

Lockwood

C. M.

2000. “Equivalence of the Mediation, Confounding and Suppression Effect.” Prevention Science 1 (4): 173–181.

34.

McKercher

Hui

E. L.

2004. “Terrorism, Economic Uncertainty and Outbound Travel from Hong Kong.” Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing 15 (2-3): 99–115.

35.

Milman

Jones

Bach

1999. “The Impact of Security Devices on Tourists’ Perceived Safety: The Central Florida Example.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 23 (4): 371–86.

36.

Morgan

N. J.

Pritchard

Piggott

2003. “Destination Branding and the Role of the Stakeholders: The Case of New Zealand.” Journal of Vacation Marketing 9 (3): 285–99.

37.

Moufakkir

2014. “What’s Immigration Got to Do With It? Immigrant Animosity and Its Effects On Tourism.” Annals of Tourism Research 49:108–21.

38.

Nakamura

Tumulty

2014. “Gov. Perry to Send National Guard Troops to Mexican Border Amid Migrant Crisis.” Washington Post, July 21. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/perry-to-send-national-guard-troops-to-mexican-border-amid-migrant-crisis/2014/07/21/499feb5a-110c-11e4-98ee-daea85133bc9_story.html (accessed January 30, 2015).

39.

Nauck

Becker

O. A.

2013. “Institutional Regulations and the Kinship Solidarity of Women—Results from 13 Areas in Asia, Africa, Europe, and North America.” European Sociological Review 29 (3): 580–92.

40.

NBCNews.Com . 2015. “Immigration Border Crisis.” NBC News Ongoing Storyline. http://Www.Nbcnews.Com/Storyline/Immigration-Border-Crisis (accessed January 21, 2015).

41.

Pearce

P. L.

2012. “The Experience of Visiting Home and Familiar Places.” Annals of Tourism Research 39 (2): 1024–47.

42.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

2006. “A Meta-Analytic Test of Ontergroup Contact Theory.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (5): 751–83.

43.

Pizam

1999. “A Comprehensive Approach to Classifying Acts of Crime and Violence at Tourism Destinations.” Journal of Travel Research 38 (1): 5–12.

44.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

2008. “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models.” Behavior Research Methods 40 (3): 879–91.

45.

Quinton

Morris

2008. Neighbourhood Policing: The Impact of Piloting and Early National Implementation. London: Home office.

46.

Rabl

2010. “Age, Discrimination, and Achievement Motives.” Personnel Review 39 (4): 448–67.

47.

Reisinger

Mavondo

2005. “Travel Anxiety and Intentions to Travel Internationally: Implications of Travel Risk Perception.” Journal of Travel Research 43 (3): 212–25.

48.

Ringle

C. M.

Wende

Becker

J.-M.

2015. “Smartpls 3. Hamburg: Smartpls.” http://www.Smartpls.Com.

49.

Rucker

D. D.

Preacher

K. J.

Tormala

Z. L.

Petty

R. E.

2011. “Mediation Analysis in Social Psychology: Current Practices and New Recommendations.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5 (6): 359–71.

50.

Silverstein

Gans

Lowenstein

Giarrusso

Bengtson

V. L.

2010. “Older Parent–Child Relationships in Six Developed Nations: Comparisons at the Intersection of Affection and Conflict.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72 (4): 1006–21.

51.

Simpson

J. J.

Simpson

P. M.

Cruz-Milán

2016. “Attitude towards Immigrants and Security: Effects on Destination-loyal Tourists.” Tourism Management 57:373–86.

52.

Simpson

2014. Winter Texan 2013-2014 Survey. Edinburg, TX: University of Texas-Pan American.

53.

Simpson

P. M.

Cruz-Milán

Gressel

2014. “Perceived Crime and Violence: Effects on Winter Migrants.” Journal of Travel Research 53 (5): 597–609.

54.

Simpson

P. M.

Siguaw

J. A.

2008. “Destination Word of Mouth: The Role of Traveler Type, Residents, and Identity Salience.” Journal of Travel Research 47 (2): 167–82.

55.

Skogan

W. G.

2005. “Citizen Satisfaction with Police Encounters.” Police Quarterly 8 (3): 298–321.

56.

Skogan

W. G.

2009. “Concern about Crime and Confidence in the Police Reassurance or Accountability?” Police Quarterly 12 (3): 301–18.

57.

Sönmez

S. F.

Apostolopoulos

Tarlow

1999. “Tourism in Crisis: Managing the Effects of Terrorism.” Journal of Travel Research 38 (1): 13–18.

58.

Sönmez

S. F.

Graefe

A. R.

1998. “Influence of Terrorism Risk on Foreign Tourism Decisions.” Annals of Tourism Research 25 (1): 112–44.

59.

Stedman

2006. “Understanding Place Attachment among Second Home Owners.” The American Behavioral Scientist 50 (2): 187–205.

60.

Woosnam

K. M.

2011a. “Comparing Residents’ and Tourists’ Emotional Solidarity with One Another: An Extension of Durkheim’s Model.” Journal of Travel Research 50 (6): 615–26.

61.

Woosnam

K. M.

2011b. “Testing A Model of Durkheim’s Theory of Emotional Solidarity among Residents of a Tourism Community.” Journal of Travel Research 50 (5): 546–58.

62.

Woosnam

K. M.

2012. “Using Emotional Solidarity to Explain Residents’ Attitudes about Tourism and Tourism Development.” Journal of Travel Research 51 (3): 315–27.

63.

Woosnam

K. M.

Aleshinloye

K. D.

2013. “Can Tourists Experience Emotional Solidarity with Residents? Testing Durkheim’s Model from a New Perspective.” Journal of Travel Research 52 (4): 494–505.

64.

Woosnam

K. M.

Aleshinloye

K. D.

2015. “Residents’ Emotional Solidarity with Tourists: Explaining Perceived Impacts of a Cultural Heritage Festival.” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research 48 (2): 245–58.

65.

Woosnam

Dudensing

Walker

2015. “How Does Emotional Solidarity Factor into Visitor Spending among Birders in the Lower Rio Rrande Valley of Texas?” Journal of Travel Research 54 (5): 645–58.

66.

Woosnam

K. M.

Norman

W. C.

2010. “Measuring Residents’ Emotional Solidarity with Tourists: Scale Development of Durkheim’s Theoretical Constructs.” Journal of Travel Research 49 (3): 365–80.

67.

Woosnam

K. M.

Shafer

C. S.

Scott

Timothy

D. J.

2015. “Tourists’ Perceived Safety through Emotional Solidarity with Residents in Two Mexico–United States Border Regions.” Tourism Management 46:263–73.

68.

Yüksel

2007. “Shopping Risk Perceptions: Effects on Tourists’ Emotions, Satisfaction and Expressed Loyalty Intentions.” Tourism Management 28 (3): 703–13.

69.

Zhao

Lynch

J. G.

Chen

2010. “Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis.” Journal of Consumer Research 37 (2): 197–206.