CORRIGENDUM to “Psychological Antecedents of Intentions to Participate in Last Chance Tourism: Considering Complementary Theories”

1) Hypothesis 8 estimates were incorrect in the original publication (β = 0.192; t-value = 3.555**; supported). The new correct estimates are included in revised Table 4 (β = -0.041; t-value = 3.555^ns; not supported). This change indicates that Hypothesis 8 is now not supported. Here is the correct table:

2) Within the abstract, it reads that, “Of the 11 hypotheses examined, 10 were supported. . .” It should read, “Of the 11 hypotheses examined, nine were supported. . .”

3) Within the Structural model and hypotheses testing section (first paragraph, last sentence), it reads, “Personal norms were positively related to individuals’ intentions to participate in LCT travel (β = 0.106, p < 0.01), thus H₅ was supported.” It should read, “However, personal norms were not significantly related to individuals’ intentions to participate in LCT travel (β = -0.040, p > 0.05), thus H₈ was supported.

4) Within the Discussion and implications section (second paragraph, second sentence), it reads, “The results demonstrated that the four constructs within the TPB framework are adequate determinants of intended travel for LCT.” It should read, “The results demonstrated that three of the four constructs (excluding personal norms) within the TPB framework are adequate determinants of intended travel for LCT.”

5) Within the Discussion and implications section (fourth paragraph, last sentence), it reads, “Depending on what side of the fence one is about the positive or negative impacts of LCT, it will be hard to influence intention to participate or forgo LCT vacations because the antecedents are far-reaching and include not only personal environmental norms but travelers’ attitudes towards LCT, the social desirability of LCT vacations, and the perceived ability for individuals to travel to LCT destinations.” It should read, “Depending on what side of the fence one is about the positive or negative impacts of LCT, it will be hard to influence intention to participate or forgo LCT vacations because the antecedents are far-reaching and include travelers’ attitudes towards LCT, the social desirability of LCT vacations, and the perceived ability for individuals to travel to LCT destinations.”

6) Within the Discussion and implications section (fifth paragraph, second sentence), it reads, “This study demonstrated that the VBN model and the four constructs within the TPB were significant in predicting individuals’ intentions to participate in LCT.” This should read, “This study demonstrated that the VBN model and three of the four constructs within the TPB were significant in predicting individuals’ intentions to participate in LCT.”