Interaction between psychological ownership and psychological resilience toward the destination

Abstract

The tourism sector was badly affected by the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic, creating thereby a need to advance knowledge on developing strategies for bringing tourists to back their favourite destinations. Although studies in tourism literature in the last two years addressed several issues relating to the pandemic, ironically not many have explored the role of tourists’ attitude towards a destination. Specifically, there have hardly been any discussions on the tourists’ psychological ownership vis-à-vis destination affinity (DA). It's an irony because they play crucial roles in leading tourists to revisit their favourite destinations. Using the ‘Psychological Resilience Theory’, this study focuses on the Covid-19 crisis and examines the relationship between attitude towards the destination, psychological ownership towards the destination, DA, and desire to revisit the destination post-Covid-19 crisis. Data (N = 274) was collected online from Indian tourists and hypothesis testing was done using PROCESS SPSS macro. The findings of the study indicated the mediating impact of DA and moderating role of psychological resilience. This study offers several important implications for tourism literature and the sector at large.

Keywords

Psychological ownership destination affinity revisit intention psychological resilience tourism

Introduction

Disasters, natural or man-made, result in significant disruption and often threaten the global economy, including the tourism sector (Kim and Wong, 2006; Song et al., 2011). A disaster may refer to a shocking event that may cause material, economic, human or environmental damage which disrupts the working of a society or a community (Galindo and Batta, 2013). ‘Disasters are large intractable problems that test the ability of communities and nations to effectively protect their populations and infrastructure, to reduce both human and property loss, and to rapidly recover’ (Altay and Green, 2006, p. 475). Amore et al. (2018) believed that the tourism industry is possibly more vulnerable to disasters or natural hazards. Thus, governments and various stakeholders of the tourism industry have tried to bring about preventive measures, and have planned response and recovery systems in case of such events. However, irrespective of these efforts, disasters do happen, such as the recent Covid-19 outbreak, which globally caught us off-guard and under-prepared (Cró and Martins, 2017), significantly impacting in the process, the global economy. For instance, during the initial days of the ongoing pandemic (Covid-19), there were significant disruptions caused by forced lockdowns, social distancing, and mobility restrictions, leading to unprecedented volatility and disruptions in the tourism sector (Radic et al., 2020). In fact, the pandemic virtually paralyzed the global economy, notwithstanding some of the major tourist destinations (Neubauer, 2020).

However, during such crises, the tourism industry at large could look to develop levels of ‘psychological resilience’ (Filimonau et al., 2020). Tourists’ psychological resilience refers to the individual's readiness to visit a destination, which can be important for the recovery of the sector (Filimonau and De Coteau, 2020). Nevertheless, one cannot deny that regardless of the impact of disasters, they do leave both tourists and destinations vulnerable. Interestingly, the importance of tourist resilience post-pandemic has been rarely discussed (Hall et al., 2018). In these lines, Prayag (2020) suggested adopting a macro, meso, and micro approach to develop suitable strategies to cope with the effects of the pandemic more effectively. Thus, to successfully navigate the change, and handle disaster recovery, various tourism industry stakeholders need to focus on the impact of disasters on destination image, which directly impacts the tourists’ revisit intention to a destination after a disaster.

As the world gradually recovers and begins to ‘unlock’ itself, tourists are planning to pack their bags again, and are likely to re-visit their favourite destinations, given their attachment to them. Zhang et al. (2018) stated that the desire to revisit a destination is related to the positive image of the destination, resulting in satisfaction and contentment from the travel experience. Cheng and Lu (2013) felt that happiness (contentment) is derived from positive experiences related to the destination. Positive experience generates memories, and tourists get attached to the destination, enhancing thereby their desire to revisit. Additionally, it creates a feeling of ‘ownership’, commonly referred to as ‘psychological ownership’ in the literature.

Importantly, post disasters, psychological resilience could also influence the revisit intention, as resilient tourists would still have the sense of ‘destination ownership’. Thus, Otoo and Kim, (2018) stated that targeting resilient consumers may be more profitable, especially to safeguard the ‘footfall’ at these destinations during difficult times. Moreover, destination managers could identify variables that would add to the resilience, and their desire to re-visit their preferred destination.

Based on the discussions so far, some of the following research questions do arise:

RQ1: What role does psychological resilience play in understanding travelers’ desire to revisit the destination?

RQ2: Is there an impact of destination affinity on the desire to revisit the destination?

To address these questions and the gaps identified in the literature, this study builds upon the Psychological Resilience (PR) Theory to investigate the relationship between attitude towards the destination (AT), psychological ownership towards the destination (PO), destination affinity (DA), and desire to revisit the destination (DR).

The following section encompasses the theoretical framework and proposes hypotheses. Sections 3 & 4 describe the research methodology, followed by the study findings. Section 5 discusses the results, along with the implications; while the last section concludes, including the limitations, and the directions of future research.

Theoretical background and hypothesis formulation

Psychological resilience

The concept of resilience has been discussed across several disciplines, including Ecology, Sociology, Psychology, and Engineering (Bec et al., 2016). Additionally, the Psychological Resilience Theory is also becoming more popular in research cutting across various disciplines and has been gaining increased attention from funders, policymakers, and professional societies (Graber et al., 2015). However, it is interesting to note that there doesn’t seem to be any ‘consensus’ on the meaning of this term. In a broader sense ‘resilience’ is termed as ‘standing strong stand and responding favorably to change’ (Bec et al., 2016), while psychological resilience specifically relates to the individuals’ ability to rebound from adversity (Luthans et al., 2006). While some researchers described psychological resilience in terms of intrinsic quality, others prefer to regard it only as a ‘process’. Some choose to focus on the individuals’ specific capacities and abilities to cope with harmful situations, while others concentrate on people's positive functioning even in adversities (Van Breda, 2018). It is due to these varieties in understandings and interpretations that the validity of the Resilience Theory has been both questioned and criticized (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013; Kolar, 2011). However, the concept of ‘psychological resilience’ has been broadly accepted; and its implications for resilience-building programmes are increasing in importance (IJntema et al., 2019).

Extant research on psychological resilience covers three linked elements: adversity, outcomes, and mediating factors (Van Breda, 2018). Adverse events refer to harmful situations, experiences, and circumstances that affect people; however, they differ in nature, duration, frequency, intensity, and predictability (Britt et al., 2016; Fisher et al., 2019). In other words, adversity could refer to any stressful situation for an individual (e.g., heavy workload) (Bryan et al., 2019), or even serious long-term or high-intensity adverse events (e.g., abusive supervision, sexual harassment) (Britt et al., 2016). People may experience chronic adversity throughout life (e.g., poverty, family violence), and/or over a period of time (e.g., climate-based disasters, wars, etc.). People could also be exposed to varying forms of acute adversity over their lifetime (e.g., fatal accident, assault) (Bonanno and Diminich, 2013). Regardless of what form adversity manifest, it invariably results in negative outcomes for people (Ayed et al., 2019). However, the effects may differ, depending on how long and how intensely has an individual experienced adversity. While it is easy to recover from some adversities quickly, for others, it may be a long-drawn process (Bonanno and Diminich, 2013). Thus, it may be stated that adverse events cause outcomes ranging from more unfavourable to more favourable (Condly, 2006); in other words, they may produce a more resilient or a less resilient response. The focal point of research on ‘resilience’ is the mediating processes that actually enable people to adapt quickly and effectively to adversities, and have better than expected results (Van Breda, 2018).

Within the ambits of tourism literature, there have been three major approaches to resilience: psychological resilience, organizational resilience, and community resilience. Psychological resilience refers to the psychological conditions of individuals, vis a vis their individual ability to cope with adversity. Organizational resilience focuses on resilience in a business context and primarily relates to crisis management. Community resilience relates to a destination, and the socio-ecological perspective of resilience (Hall et al., 2018).

Furthermore, while the ‘macro’ dimensions of resilience have received much attention from tourism scholars (Norris et al., 2008), especially the socio-ecological concepts (Biggs et al., 2012), psychological resilience has possibly been the least explored area (Lew, 2018). Numerous researchers, for instance, have examined the consequences of climate-based disasters (e.g., floods, hurricanes, wildfires, droughts), along with other adverse events (e.g., pandemics, terrorist attacks) under the socio-ecological systems (Mair et al., 2016). However, one must acknowledge that since 2020, when the world was ravaged by the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, the concept of resilience has been gaining significant ground, given its large-scale impact on the global economy, including tourism industry (Prayag, 2020). Thus, resilience research in the face of the pandemic, and the disaster recovery process, appears to be a new research area in tourism, with high potential for exploration.

Destination affinity

DA, also referred to as destination attachment or place attachment, appears to be an essential and broadly discussed concept in tourism literature due to its effects, such as tourist satisfaction and loyalty. Generally speaking, DA is described as an emotional bond between individuals and particular places (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001). However, it is also argued that DA refers to both the cognitive and affective bond to a particular setting (Low, 1992). It has widely been acknowledged that DA is a multi-dimensional construct. For instance, Williams et al. (1992) observed that DA has been conceptualized within the context of place dependence (Stokols and Shumaker, 1981) and place identity (Proshansky, 1978). According to Hidalgo and Hernandez (2001), DA comprises socio-physical components. It has also been argued that social attachment is probably larger than physical attachment. Ramkissoon et al. (2013) identified another dimension ‘place affect’; they suggested that place dependence, place identity, place social bonding, and place affect is important DA constituents.

Numerous other scholars have also examined different aspects of DA, including antecedents and effects of this phenomenon. For instance, ‘destination image’ has been found as an important determinant of DA (Chen and Phou, 2013; Kaplanidou et al., 2012; Prayag and Ryan, 2012). ‘ ‘Destination attractiveness’ has been observed to have a positive impact on DA (Hou et al., 2005; Xu and Zhang, 2016) as well as service quality (Su et al., 2016), involvement (Hou et al., 2005; Xu and Zhang, 2016), motivation (Xu and Zhang, 2016), and satisfaction (Ramkissoon and Mavondo, 2015; Xu and Zhang, 2016). On the other hand, both satisfaction and loyalty seem to be important consequences of DA, as behavioural intentions, like willingness to return and recommend a destination, are observed among tourists (Chen and Phou, 2013; Isa et al., 2019; Prayag and Ryan, 2012). However, only a few studies have investigated the effect of the overall attitude on DA (Prayag et al., 2018; Silva and Correia, 2017). Moreover, there is hardly any evidence of the impact of psychological ownership on DA. Thus, the relationship between attitude, DA, and planned future behaviour as well as the linkage between psychological ownership, DA, and planned future behavior need to be explored to a greater extent.

Attitudes towards the destination

Attitude formation is essential in consumer behaviour studies. Moutinho (1987) termed an attitude as ‘an act to respond in a consistent manner towards an object, which is mostly developed out of experience and learning.’ However, it refers also to a person, event, institution, or other aspects of one's world. Attitudes are known to have three constituents: cognitive, affective, and conative; they could either be favourable or unfavourable (Ajzen, 1989). The cognitive constituent of attitude relates to the knowledge, beliefs, and thoughts about an object. The affective constituent relates to feelings and emotions towards an object, while the behaviour constituent reveals tendencies to act in a particular way towards an object (Parkany et al., 2004). Attitudes are considered a part of the decision-making process (Ajzen, 1989; Fazio, 1986; Ronis et al., 1989). Influence of attitudes on behaviour have been thoroughtly examined by scholars (Ajzen et al., 2018).

Attitude in tourism literature refers to predispositions toward a destination or tourist services, based on various tourism product features (Moutinho, 1987). The linkage between cognition, affect, and behavioural intentions have been well explored in past literature (Bagozzi and Burnkrant, 1985; Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975; Reibstein et al., 1980). In destination selection models, cognitive evaluations (beliefs, perceptions) and affective evaluations (feelings) have been employed as elements influencing tourists’ behavioural intentions related to decisions regarding destination selection (Baloglu, 1998) and the electronic word of mouth (Jalilvand et al., 2012). Silva and Correia (2017) and Prayag et al. (2018) have examined the corellation between the tourists’ overall attitude towards a destination, DA, and tourists’ responses.

Psychological ownership

The concept of psychological ownership has attracted several scholars’ attention from various disciplines, and has been broadly studied ever since the 1980s, especially in organizations and employees, and further, in other domains, including Consumer Psychology (Pierce and Peck, 2018). Pierce et al. (2003, 2001) presented their conceptual perspective on psychological ownership, and defined the construct as ‘the state in which individuals feel as though the target of ownership or a piece of that target is theirs.’ In other words, psychological ownership is the mental state in which, an individual experiences possessive feelings towards a specific target. It has been argued that psychological ownership refers to to person-object relations, as well as intangible entities, and other people (Pierce and Jussila, 2011). Notably, the state of psychological ownership comprises both cognitive and affective components, which reflect the complexity of this phenomenon (Pierce et al., 2003). This psychological state may also refer to a collective experience, as the sense of ownership may emerge at a group level (collective psychological ownership) (Pierce and Jussila, 2010). Thus, it may be stated that psychological ownership does exist on both individual and group levels, and may thereby be investigated under various contexts (Pierce and Peck, 2018).

Although there is some evidence that psychological ownership may affect various consumer behaviours within the hospitality and tourism industry framework, however, it is limited. Some of these salient studies include the works of Asatryan and Oh (2008), who investigated psychological ownership in the context of restaurants; Kumar and Nayak (2019) examined possessive feelings towards a destination; while Zhang and Xu (2019) explored psychological ownership with regards to tourism. It may also be reiterated here that the main focus of these studies was to explore the determinants and psychological impact of psychological ownership.

Hypothesis formulation

Attitude towards the destination and desire to revisit (via destination affinity)

Tourists develop an emotional connection with certain places, resulting in destination-related behaviours. However, the attitude may vary based on visitors’ experiences from the destination (Hosany & Gilbert, 2010). It is important to note that the overall attitude towards a destination is often described in terms of feelings for the place due to emotional ties between individuals and the destination. Yan and Halpenny (2022) for instance, pointed out that savouring can influence DA at all stages of a tourism experience. Hosany and Gilbert (2010) suggested that emotional experiences were linked to feelings of love and joy, while positive surprise results in satisfaction and behavioural intentions. Earlier, Jalilvand et al. (2012) indicated that destination image and tourist attitude have a remarkable impact on the travel intention. In recent studies, Silva and Correia (2017) explored the relationship between tourists and destinations; they claimed that DA related to emotional ties with a destination per se, positively impacts revisit intentions. Prayag et al. (2018) found a positive corellation between overall attitude towards the destination, DA, and intent to recommend. Reccently, Josiassen et al. (2022) examined tourism affinity effects on tourism behaviour. They suggested that tourism affinity is associated with positive feelings towards a destination. In addition, they proposed DA to be a driver of effects, such as word of mouth, willingness to visit, and desire to have closer encounters with the local people.

It is evident that the overall attitude related to feelings affects DA and subsequently generates certain customer responses. In the tourists’ case, place identity seems to be a more important element of DA than place dependence, enhancing thereby the affective nature of the relationship between a tourist and a destination. Based on prior findings, we assume that DA is a mediator in the relationship between attitude towards a destination and revisit intention, and thus, we hypothesize:

H1: Attitude towards the destination positively impacts the desire to revisit through the mediating role of destination affinity.

Psychological ownership and desire to revisit (via destination affinity)

Tourism research in the past has observed several effects of psychological ownership, related to possessive feelings towards a specific target. For instance, Asatryan and Oh (2008) investigated psychological ownership in the context of restaurants and revealed that feeling ownership get activated when individuals are personally attached with dinning experience. They added that ‘willingness to pay more,’ ‘competitive resistance,’ ‘relationship intentions,’ and ‘word-of-mouth communications’ are among the positive effects of psychological ownership. Kumar and Nayak (2019) maintained that a sense of belonging and identification with a destination results in psychological ownership, which in turn, goes on to influence the revisit and recommendation intentions. Zhang and Xu (2019) examined destination psychological ownership for residents; they suggested that destination psychological ownership positively impacts DA, which subsequently affects destination-related behaviours, commonly described as place citizenship behaviour.

Tourists may also experience feelings of ownership and emotional attachment to a destination even though they do not legally own the place. Consequently, visitors may exhibit numerous positive behaviours associated with psychological ownership (Pierce et al., 2003). Tourists may also engage in community issues contributing to destination well-being, and in the process, take personal risks, whereby they choose to sacrifice destination-related security and prosperity while showing concern and care for the destination. In fact, they may also look to exercise greater control over a destination, alluding to behaviours related to DA. As stated earlier, DA does have a positive impact on intention to revisit. Thus, based on the previous research results, we assume that tourists with destination psychological ownership are more attached to a destination, increasing their revisit intention thereof. It may thereby be suggested that DA is a mediator in the relationship between psychological ownership and revisit intention, and thus hypothesized that:

H2: Psychological ownership positively impacts the desire to revisit through the mediating role of destination affinity.

Moderating role of psychological resilience

Tourists play a fundamental role in the recovery of tourism system in the aftermath of a disaster, because they are the ones that decide to visit or revisit a destination. They are also crucial for destination restoration, future risk reduction, and resilience enhancement (Fountain and Cradock-Henry, 2020). Thus, understanding the tourists’ response to critical events would help develop recovery plan for tourism destinations (Mair et al., 2016). Secondly, it may be noted that tourists exhibit different levels of resilience, and their behaviour varies in cases of emergency (Hajibaba et al., 2015). Hajibaba et al. (2015) investigated tourists’ travel behaviour from the UK, the USA, Canada, and Australia, and distinguished different segments of travellers based on their willingness to travel despite critical events (e.g., sickness, family matters, natural disasters, unrest). According to their findings, some tourists were more resistant to the crisis than others. Notably, crisis-resistant tourists are more likely to take a wider range of risks, and their perception of risk propensity is generally higher than that of others. Extant literature has also evidenced that destination attachment, familiarity, and proximity are some of the main travel motives to visit a destination, especially after a disaster. Fountain and Cradock-Henry (2020) examined domestic and international tourists’ experiences, travelling to Kaikōura in New Zealand, two years after an earthquake hit this region in 2016. Their study results suggest that tourists’ resilience, as well as destination resilience, would be enhanced by putting more emphasis on sharing knowledge and building awareness among tourists. It is also worth mentioning that place identity and place dependence have a significant impact on community resilience, and residents with strong DA do exhibit higher resilience and adaptability (Guo et al., 2018).

As previously mentioned, critical events, such as climate-based disasters and other adverse events allow tourism researchers to study resilience from different perspectives. Even though pandemics have happened before, and are similar to other disasters, they do impact the socio-ecological system, including destinations, businesses, and tourists. Because tourists are crucial to a destination's recovery after a critical event (Fountain and Cradock-Henry, 2020), tourists’ travel patterns and behaviours during a pandemic do need to be thoroughly examined.

Importantly, travelling during this ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has been associated with additional risks, such as fears of getting infected, while also infecting others after the return. Additionally, there have also been concerns about the quality of local health services, and travel insurance coverage as well as worries about unpredictable travel and quarantine restrictions (Flaherty and Nasir, 2020). However, psychological resilience with regards to the Covid-19 pandemic has not been investigated yet. Thus, taking into consideration previous results regarding the effects of the overall attitude and psychological ownership towards a destination on DA as well as the effect of psychological resilience on DA, we hypothesize:

H3: The mediating effect of psychological ownership towards the destination on the desire to revisit through destination affinity is moderated by psychological resilience such that this effect is stronger with high psychological resilience.

H4: The mediating effect of attitude towards the destination on the desire to revisit through destination affinity is moderated by psychological resilience such that this effect is stronger with high psychological resilience.

Figure 1 provides details of conceptual framework and hypothesis.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Methods overview and a study context

Sampling and data collection procedure

For hypothesis testing, we collected data from people, who desired to revisit a destination after the Covid-19 pandemic. Notably, within this pandemic time, the internet had become the primary and common survey mode (Couper and Bosnjak, 2010; Leiner, 2019). Therefore, we adopted an online questionnaire for collecting data from Indian participants through online communities and various social networking sites. Data was collected from the second week of April 2020 to the first week of June 2020. The questionnaire was evaluated by three marketing professors of an Indian university, along with two independent experts, working in India's tourism sector. Based on their inputs, we retained or rejected a particular item. Finally, we further improvised upon the questionnaire, whereby, we also got it proofread to avoid any grammatical and linguistic errors. Thereafter, we shared the questionnaire with those individuals who responded positively to participate in the survey and qualify for our study. Respondents were qualified based on the their age (18 years and above), desire to revisit a destination after the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, we considered people who visited some destinations at least once in the last two years. We attached a covering letter, along with the survey questionnaire to describe the purpose of the study. We requested the participants to respond to this survey given the backdrop of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic that affected their travel behaviour. We asked them to consider any destination (national/international) they have travelled in the past (considered as destination’X’ for responding) for tourism purpose (excluding their home town, workplace city etc.), based on Beirman’s (2003) work, where ‘tourism destination’ may be referred to as a country, state, or city. Respondents voluntarily participated in this survey, once we assured them of their data privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality.

Survey participants and demographic profile

We received a total of 410 complete responses, after eliminating incomplete, straightlining, and inconsistent responses (Leiner, 2019), 274 responses were used for data analysis. Table 1 depicts the demographic profile of the respondents. The respondents’ demographic profiles reflect that 57.6% were men, while about 42.4% were women. Most of the respondents were in the age group of 25 to 35 years (62.5%). Additionally, the monthly income of the majority of respondednts belonged to US$1000 to US$2500 (59.50%). To ensure that gender has no impact on the tourists’ desire to revisit a destination, we conducted an independent sample t-test with gender and desire to revisit a destination as a dependent variable. The results showed no difference between genders (p-value = 0.157).

Table 1.

Demographic profile of respondents.

Demographic characteristics	Items	Sample size (%)
Age	Less than 25	5.20
	25–35 years	62.50
	36–45 years	16.04
	46 and above	16.26
Marital status	Married	61.71
Marital status	Unmarried	38.29
Gender	Male	57.60
Gender	Female	42.40
Educational Qualification	Below graduation	10.52
	Graduation	24.19
	Post-graduation and higher	65.29
Monthly income	US$ 1000 and below	8.48
	US$ 1000- US$2500	59.50
	US$ 2501- US$4000	21.89
	More than US$4000	10.13

Measure

The survey questionnaire comprised of two sections; the first presented items related to five constructs that used validated item scales from previous studies. Respondents rated their level of agreement with each item, using a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 7 = ‘strongly agree’ to 1 = ‘strongly disagree’, except for attitude towards the destination, which was measured on a semantic differential scale. The second captured the demographic information of the respondents. We assessed the constructs of desire to revisit and DA, using a three-item scale, adapted from Kumar and Nayak (2019). We adopted a five-item scale related to psychological ownership towards the destination from Kirk et al. (2018). For attitude towards a destination, we adopted a four-item scale from Sparks and Pan (2009), while for psychological resilience, we used a nine-item scale from Siu et al. (2009). Notably, out of these, we deleted two items due to poor loading, and hence, we had seven items for the analysis (Table 2).

Table 2.

Construct and measurement assessment.

Constructs and scale items	Estimate (Standardized factor loading)	α	Composite Reliability (CR)
Destination Affinity (DA)		0.936	0.933
DA1: This destination fits well to me.	0.870
DA2: I strongly identify with this destination.	0.930
DA3: I feel attached to this destination.	0.919
Psychological Ownership Towards Destination (PO)		0.907	0.910
PO1: Although I do not legally own Destination X, I feel like this is ‘my’ place.	0.702
PO 2: I feel a very high degree of personal ownership of Destination X.	0.834
PO 3: I feel like this Destination X belongs to me.	0.866
PO 4: I feel a strong sense of closeness with Destination X.	0.919
PO 5: Destination X incorporates a part of myself.	0.756
Attitude Towards Destination (AT)		0.921	0.924
AT1: My attitude toward travel to Destination X is unenjoyable/enjoyable.	0.817
AT2: My attitude toward travel to Destination X is bad/good.	0.842
AT3: My attitude toward travel to Destination X is unpleasant/pleasant.	0.930
AT4: My attitude toward travel to Destination X is unfavourable/favourable.	0.879
Psychological Resilience (PR)		0.918	0.911
PR1: I feel capable of overcoming my present or any future difficulties and problems I might face such as resolving dilemmas or making difficult decisions.	0.742
PR2: I have high capacity for facing adversity.	0.754
PR3: When there is a great deal of pressure being placed on me, I remain calm.	0.814
PR4: During stressful circumstances, I never experience anxiety.	0.872
PR5: When I have made a mistake during a stressful situation, I continue to like myself.*	0.643
PR6: When I need to stand up for myself, I can do it easily.	0.712
PR7: In really difficult situations, I feel able to respond in positive ways.	0.845
PR8: I experience peacefulness, when I need to relax during stressful times.*	0.604
PR9: I remain calm, even when I am in a frightening situation.	0.738
Desire to Revisit the destination (DR)		0.905	0.907
DR1: I will visit Destination X again in the future.	0.887
DR 2: If I could have done it again, I would have chosen this Destination X.	0.871
DR 3: I plan to visit this Destination X.	0.865

*items deleted due to poor loading.

Common method biased (CMV)

In a survey-based method, the likelihood of common method bias may exist Common method variance (CMV) is ‘variance that is attributable to the measurement method rather than to the constructs the measures represent’ (Podsakoff et al., 2003, p. 879). We presented the items non-sequentially to avoid the possibility of CMV (Buckley et al., 1990). To further reduce the possibility of CMV, we used a post-hoc Harman one-factor analysis to check whether ‘variance in the data could largely be attributed to a single factor’ (Chang et al., 2010, p.179). Then, we conducted an un-rotated EFA test for all items to check if a single factor did emerge. Notably, the largest eigenvalue did not explain 50% of all variables (30.78% of variance), and thereby, we affirm that common method bias was not a problem in this study.

Results

Measurement model analysis

We used SPSS AMOS version 25 and PROCESS SPSS macro (Hayes, 2018) to confirm the planned conceptual model and hypotheses. For measuring the study variables, we used existing scales, whereby Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) with maximum likelihood estimation was performed to assess both reliability and validity (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The model fit indices were acceptable [normed χ2 = 3.559; RMSEA = .072, CFI = .923, TLI = .931, IFI = .939] as all the factor loadings were above 0.70, and were statistically significant (Hair et al., 2010). Further, we analysed Cronbach's alpha values and composite reliability (Table 2) to assess internal consistency, wherein, all values were more than the recommended value of 0.70, affirming thereby construct reliability (Hair et al., 2010). The average variance extracted (AVE) for each variable was over 0.50, and composite reliability for each factor was over the acceptable value of 0.70 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981) indicating adequate convergent validity. Additionally, the square root of the AVE of each construct exceeded the correlation between constructs, demonstrating adequate discriminant validity. Table 3 presents the mean, standard deviation, correlations, AVE, and the square root of AVE.

Table 3.

Squared inter-construct correlations, means, standard deviations (SD), AVEs.

Construct	Mean (SD)	AVE	DA	PR	AT	PO	DR
Destination Affinity (DA)	5.59 (1.04)	0.822	0.907
Psychological Resilience (PR)	5.02 (1.04)	0.629	0.385	0.793
Attitude Towards Destination (AT)	6.04 (0.87)	0.753	0.647	0.364	0.868
Psychological Ownership (PO)	5.14 (1.35)	0.721	0.845	0.545	0.509	0.849
Desire to Revisit the Destination (DR)	5.82 (1.61)	0.765	0.635	0.176	0.654	0.623	0.874

Note: Values on the cross diagonals represent the square root of AVE.

Data analysis

We used PROCESS macro for SPSS to test the mediation and moderation effect (Hayes, 2018). Moreover, we adopted the non-parametric bootstrapping regression techniques for mediation and moderated mediation models. Notably, the moderating variables state the strength of an effect between the dependent and independent, and this effect may vary at different values of the moderating variable.

The mediating effect of psychological ownership and attitude towards the destination on the desire to revisit the destination (via destination affinity)

PROCESS Macro was used to calculate the results and the same is presented in Table 4. According to MacKinnon et al. (2007), the strength of mediation analysis is established between the study variables, conditioned by the strength of both the direct and indirect relationship between the variables. In our case, the direct effect of the psychological ownership on desire to revisit via DA as a mediator (effect = .154; t = 2.541; p = .011) is statistically significant. The indirect effect (effect = 0.372; LLCI = 0.236; ULCI = 0.530) is positive and significant too, as the confidence intervals’ both lower limit and upper limit did not straddle 0. This reflects that an increase in psychological ownership would only increase the desire to revisit a destination when DA is taken as a mediator. This also establishes partial mediation, which essentially describes that the mediating variable DA account for some, but not all, of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Hence, hypothesis H1 is supported.

Table 4.

Mediation effects.

Direct relationship tested	Effect		t	p-value
H1: Psychological ownership towards destination → Desire to revisit	0.157		2.541	0.011
H2: Attitude towards destination → Desire to revisit	0.334		4.203	0.000
Indirect relationship tested	B	BootSE	BootLLCI	BootULCI
H1: Psychological ownership towards destination → Destination affinity → Desire to revisit	0.372	0.074	0.236	0.530
H2: Attitude towards destination → Destination affinity → Desire to revisit	0.476	0.096	0.307	0.685

Similarly, we analysed the results of both the direct and indirect effects of attitude on desire to revisit via mediator DA. Notably, both the direct (effect = 0.334; t = 4.203; p = .000) and the indirect effect (effect = 0.476; LLCI = 0.307; ULCI = 0.685) are found to be positive and significant, as LLCI and ULCI values did not include 0. This shows that there is also a partial mediation between attitude and desire to revisit (via DA), supporting thereby hypothesis H2.

The moderating effect of psychological resilience

The moderated mediation test using the regression bootstrapping method was performed, using PROCESS macro with Model 58 (Hayes, 2018). Table 5 displays the moderating effect of psychological resilience. We used the interaction term to determine whether psychological resilience does moderate the indirect relationship between (a) psychological ownership and DA via moderator psychological resilience and (b) DA and desire to revisit via moderator psychological resilience. The interaction terms psychological ownership X psychological resilience (b = 0.013; t = 0.487; p = 0.626) was insignificant, while the interaction term DA X psychological resilience (b = 0.154; t = 3.507; p = .000) was statistically significant. Thus, the results partially validate the moderating role of psychological resilience between psychological ownership and desire to revisit via mediator DA. Further, the results also indicate that when psychological resilience was low (−1SD), the conditional indirect effect of psychological ownership on desire to revisit was positive and significant. On the other hand, when psychological resilience was high ( + 1SD), the conditional indirect effect was significant and higher (values of b increased from 0.291 to 0.503). Thus, it may be affirmed that psychological resilience does strengthen the relationship between psychological ownership and desire to revisit. Further, this indicates that psychological resilience does also moderate the relationship between psychological ownership and desire to revisit via mediator DA, lending support thereby to hypothesis H3.

Table 5.

Moderation effect.

(a) Moderating effect of psychological resilience (PR)
	B	t	p-value	LLCI	ULCI
Interaction effect of PO → DA via moderator PR	0.013	0.487	0.626	−0.039	0.065
Interaction effect of PO → DR via moderator PR	0.154*	3.507	0.000	0.067	0.240
Conditional indirect effect (via PO) of DA on DR at different levels		Effect	BootSE	LLCI	ULCI
	−1 SD (PR)	0.291*	0.095	0.115	0.492
	Mean (PR)	0.415*	0.077	0.269	0.575
	+ 1 SD (PR)	0.503*	0.081	0.355	0.676
	B	t	p-value	LLCI	ULCI
Interaction effect of AT→ DA via moderator PR	0.101	1.901	0.058	−0.003	0.206
Interaction effect of DA → DR via moderator PR	0.138*	3.178	0.001	0.052	0.224
Conditional indirect effect of DA on DR (via AT) at different levels		Effect	BootSE	LLCI	ULCI
	−1 SD (PR)	0.319*	0.116	0.126	0.582
	Mean (PR)	0.508*	0.104	0.327	0.734
	+ 1 SD (PR)	0.664*	0.133	0.443	0.963

Note: * significant.

All variables were mean-centered prior to analysis.

LLCI – Lower level confidence interval

ULCI – Upper level confidence interval.

Similarly, the interaction term was used to determine whether psychological resilience moderates the indirect relationship between (a) attitude and DA via moderator psychological resilience and (b) DA and desire to revisit via moderator psychological resilience. The interaction terms attitude X psychological resilience (b = 0.101; t = 1.901; p = 0.058) was insignificant, while the interaction term DA X psychological resilience (b = 0.138; t = 3.178; p = .001) was positive and statistically significant. This result validates the moderating role of psychological resilience between attitude and desire to revisit via mediator DA. Further, we also note that when psychological resilience was low (−1SD), the conditional indirect effect of attitude on desire to revisit was positive and significant. On the other hand, when psychological resilience was high ( + 1SD), the conditional indirect effect was significant and higher (values of b increased from 0.319 to 0.664). Thus, it may be affirmed that psychological resilience strengthens the relationship between attitude and desire to revisit. In fact, psychological resilience moderates the relationship between attitude and desire to revisit via mediator DA, supporting hypothesis H4 thereof.

Discussion, theoretical and managerial implications

Discussion

This study investigated the relationship between psychological ownership and attitude towards a destination revisit through the mediating role of DA. We attempted to apply the Psychological Resilience Theory in understanding tourists’ desire to revisit a destination in the context of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Considering the fundamental role of DA as a mediator and psychological resilience as a moderator, we investigated the determinants of tourists’ desire to revisit a destination. In congruence with the proposed hypotheses, results reveal that psychological ownership does influence the desire to revisit, while DA significantly affects the mediator in the relationship. We also noted that psychological ownership increases the desire to revisit a destination when mediated by DA. The findings may help improve the understanding of how ‘attitude’ towards a destination could favourably lead to a desire to revisit a destination in the presence of DA. Furthermore, in line with the proposed hypothesized relationship (H3), the results also reveal a moderating role of psychological resilience in the mediating effect of psychological ownership towards the destination on the desire to revisit through DA. Finally, through hypothesis (H4), we also learn about the significant role of psychological resilience as a moderator in the mediating effect of attitude towards a destination on the desire to revisit through DA. In fact, the influence of DA as a mediator does seem stronger with higher psychological resilience.

This study offers a useful understanding of the ongoing discussion on instilling back the desire to revisit a destination (Hallmann et al., 2015; Jang and Feng, 2007; Stylos et al., 2016), even though in a pandemic. It may be noted that most previous studies with a prime focus on understanding the determinants of the intention of revisiting a destination have been associated with destination image (Chen and Funk, 2010; Kim et al., 2012), and have rarely been investigated in a crisis. However, there have been some exceptions; for instance, Chew and Jahari (2014) investigated the role of perceived risk (i.e., physical risk, socio-psychological risk, financial risk) and destination image (i.e., cognitive and affective) in influencing revisiting intention in the context of a crisis. This study offers a novel approach to studying determinants of desire for revisiting destination by borrowing knowledge from the Psychological Resilience Theory (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013), as it is associated with an individual's behaviour to bounce back to normal life, even in an adverse situation.

Discussing the positive and significant impact of psychological ownership on the desire to revisit through the mediating role of DA, it can be inferred that DA does act as a positive feeling creator about the destination per se, and may subsequently strengthen the impact of psychological ownership on the desire to revisit. Asseraf and Shoham (2017) through their study, stated that affinity is the result of individuals’ personal experience from a destination visit, which creates attachment towards that destination. Additionally, emotional bonds get strengthened because of normative exposure (Oberecker and Diamantopoulos, 2011), and subsequently, DA acts as a catalyst in the relationship between psychological ownership and the desire to revisit the destination. Oberecker and Diamantopoulos (2011) on the other hand, suggested two dimensions of affinity, attachment, and sympathy, which motivate tourists to generate the desire to revisit a destination. In terms of the positive and significant relationship between attitude towards a destination and the desire to revisit the same through the mediating role of DA, it may be assumed that such a relationship would be an outcome of a set of positive feelings, such as the enjoyable, good, pleasant, and favourable experience of a destination. In line with previous studies on the role of destination attachment as a catalyst for enhancing revisit intention (Song et al., 2017; Stylos et al., 2016), we suggest that DA does mediate the relationship between attitude towards a destination, and the desire to revisit. Stylos et al. (2016) had earlier suggested that DA reflects the emotional bond between destination and tourist, and highlighted the active role of affective feeling in strengthening the relationship between attitude and desire to revisit. Through this study, we confirm the regulating role of psychological resilience in the relationship between psychological ownership, attitude towards a destination, DA, and desire to revisit. Our findings reveal that greater resilience would result in strengthening the relationship between psychological ownership and desire to revisit and attitude towards the destination and desire to revisit.

Similarly, results reveal that when psychological resilience is high, the conditional indirect effect seems significant and thereby stronger is the relationship between attitude towards a destination and the desire to revisit. So, tourists, who have higher psychological resilience, are stronger in adapting to the trauma and stress of a disaster and get to a normal state of mind sooner.

Implications

This study contributes to and expands existing knowledge about tourists’ revisit intention in the following multiple ways; first, the study tries to extend the application of the Theory of Psychological Resilience. So far, the theory has been used with a main focus on the stress perspective, being applied very commonly in the consumer behaviour perspective (Bermes, 2021) and hardly being used in a tourist revisit context. Second, it proposes a theoretical framework for understanding the determinants of tourists’ desire to revisit a destination per se. In fact, in this regard, this study is possibly among the very few studies that attempted to understand tourists’ intent to revisit during a pandemic. The key theoretical achievement of our proposed framework has been to test the relationship between psychological ownership and attitude toward a destination with a desire to revisit, in the context of a global pandemic like Covid-19. Other studies done in the past with a similar context have looked to link the tourists’ revisit intent to destination image (Chew and Jahari, 2014; Stylos et al., 2016), perceived justice (Kim et al., 2009), and social capital (Kim et al., 2016).

Explaining the similarity and contrast with the previously published work in the area, the present study got some similarities in the form of a positive association between psychological ownership and tourist revisit intention (Kumar and Nayak, 2019), however, the previously published work have not investigated the DA as a mediator and psychological resilience as a moderator. Kumar and Nayak, (2019) studied psychological ownership from its determinants perspective and also did not focus on the pandemic as a key context to propose the association between psychological ownership and tourist revisit intention. Except for the linkage between psychological ownership and tourist revisit intention, it is relatively difficult to compare and contrast the findings of this study since no other relationships proposed in the study have been tested before.

This study offers a novel approach to study determinants of desire for revisiting a destination in a pandemic context grounded on the Psychological Resilience Theory (Fletcher and Sarkar, 2013). It is expected that an individual's tendency is to bounce back to normal life, even in an adverse situation. In discussing tourist revisit intention in a pandemic context, Rather (2021) tested the impact of social media and customer engagement as the significant determinants of moderating the impact of fear on tourists’ revisit intention. Hassan and Soliman (2021) tested the impact of destination reputation and trust as determinants with risk arousal as moderators on the tourists’ revisit intention. Even some recent studies have investigated the significant role of fear arousal (Rather, 2021; Hassan and Soliman, 2021) and trust issues (Poon and Koay, 2021) in revisiting a destination but did not studied with a focus on psychological ownership, affinity, and resilience aspect. The study offers a useful understanding of the ongoing discussion on instilling back the desire to revisit a destination (Hallmann et al., 2015; Jang and Feng, 2007; Stylos et al., 2016) during a pandemic. It may be noted that the most previous studies with a prime focus on understanding the determinants of the intention of revisiting a destination have been associated with destination image (Chen and Funk, 2010; Kim et al., 2012), and have rarely been investigated in a crisis. However, there have been some exceptions; for instance, Chew and Jahari (2014) investigated the role of perceived risk (i.e., physical risk, socio-psychological risk, financial risk) and destination image (i.e., cognitive and affective) in influencing revisiting intention in the context of a crisis.

Finally, this study is indeed a rare attempt to see how psychological resilience moderates, while DA mediates the impact of psychological ownership and attitude towards a destination with an intent to revisit. Tourism practitioners may utilize the findings from this study to understand how tourists can effectively utilize their psychological resilience to return to their preferred destination. As suggested in the literature that there is a symbiotic relationship between tourists’ resilience building and crisis management in tourism (Prayag, 2018). We used the Psychological Resilience Theory, which seemed very relevant in terms of understanding the tourists’ revisit intention, even during a pandemic, and after the pandemic. Further, through the construct of psychological ownership, our results revealed a significant role of DA as a mediator, which seems logical, because it is likely that the combination of psychological ownership and DA would strongly motivate tourists to revisit the destination. Similarly, tourists that have a positive attitude towards a destination and are thereby attached psychologically to the destination, tend to hold a stronger desire to revisit. The present study attracts more attention to how psychological resilience controls the determinants of the desire to revisit a destination. In a nutshell, this study is representative of an application of the Psychological Resilience Theory in the tourism context, wherein it expands tourists’ revisit destination literature.

The present study sought to offer suggestions to tour planners of tourist destinations along with useful theoretical implications. Destination planners and managers should capitalize on the present study's findings by designing marketing strategies to attract tourists to revisit the destination. Given that DA does play a significant role in strengthening the impact on the desire to revisit a destination, destination managers need to communicate arousal-related messages to instigate positive feelings towards a destination per se. It is likely that people under the stress of the pandemic need to be made feel relaxed through positive DA for making them revisit the destination. Also, destination management organizations (DMOs) are keen to understand how to nullify pandemic effects and attract tourists to the destination. DMOs should prepare plans related to signifying emotions related to psychological resilience since it may help a lot to bring tourists back to the destinations. This study may help DMOs understand how to ignite the tourists’ desire by capitalizing on DA. For example, DMOs could augment DA by recalling the bond and ownership in ways that tourists get to rethink about visiting a destination. Further, to boost the capacity utilization of tourists’ destinations, it is inevitable to motivate tourists to revisit their preferred destination; and in order to mitigate fearful feelings, it is extremely important for destination planners and DMOs to highlight the positive side of visiting the destination. In fact, recently, UNESCO also shed light on developing strategies to develop a stable recovery from the devastating effect of the pandemic on tourism. The present study would certainly help tourism policymakers provide ways to provoke the tourists’ desire to revisit their preferred destination.

Conclusion, limitations, and future research directions

The resilience of the tourism system is of great importance and has great potential for future research. Moreover, the effects of a disaster like the Covid-19 pandemic on the tourism industry, and the likelihood of future pandemics do significantly increase the importance of examining tourist, community, and tourism systems’ resilience. In addition, it may be noted that the current knowledge surrounding psychological resilience in the context of tourism has largely been theoretical, wherein psychological resilience, especially among tourists, appears to be the least explored area. As mentioned earlier, this is possibly amongst the few studies to have developed a theoretical framework of the impact of attitude towards the destination and psychological ownership on tourists’ revisit intention through the mediating effect of DA, while being moderated by psychological resilience. The originality of this study lies in examining the relationship between attitude, psychological ownership, DA, and planned future behaviour in the context of psychological resilience. However, due to the complexity of the tourism system, and its numerous interdependencies, including the links between tourists, community, and the tourism system, further research is indeed needed to understand how resilient tourists may contribute to the system recovery after a disaster. Future research results in tourist resilience may provide further valuable implications for community planning to build and sustain the resilient tourism system.

The present study contributes to the field of tourism resilience, yet it is not free from limitations. This study has been carried out in the context of the pandemic. However, future researchers can likely use the proposed framework's dimensions to explore the impact of other critical events, such as natural disasters, weather-related disasters, and other events, including pandemics, on tourists’ behavioural intentions. Secondly, our sample size may not be representative of overall tourists’ views on revisiting destinations. Though the sample size seems adequate for the present study when investigated (Westland, 2010) by taking care of ex-posteriori testing the minimum sample size. Moreover, convenience sampling used in this study does not generalize the results; however, it can be used when testing a new model. This study also focused exclusively on Indian tourists’ perceptions. Thus, it would be interesting to carry out a similar survey across cultures. Furthermore, the impact of two determinants of desire to revisit the destination has been tested in this study; however, the social and psychological dimensions may add greater value to strengthen the predictability of the proposed model. Future researchers could also consider the impact of perceived risks, such as health risks and psychological risks, on different tourist segments, as diverse disasters may leave different risk perceptions that might influence the tourists’ revisit intention. Lastly, though the study was conducted with Indian respondents using an online survey, future studies may focus on a particular part of the country or region, or the range of the destinations such as national, international, etc to understand the impact of culture/sub-culture. Researchers could consider the impact of the destination based on tourists’ level of attachment or destination brand equity and personality etc. and its influence on the revisit intention of tourists.

Footnotes

Author contribution

The authors contributed equally to this work.

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

ORCID iD

Maria Johann

References

Ajzen

(1989) Attitude structure and behavior. In: Pratkanis

Breckler

Greenwald

(eds) Attitude Structure and Function. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 241–274.

Ajzen

Fishbein

Lohmann

, et al. (2018) The influence of attitudes on behavior. In: The Handbook of Attitudes, pp. 197–255.

Altay

Green WG

III

(2006) OR/MS research in disaster operations management. European Journal of Operational Research 175(1): 475–493.

Amore

Prayag

Hall

(2018) Conceptualizing destination resilience from a multilevel perspective. Tourism Review International 22(3-4): 235–250.

Asatryan

(2008) Psychological ownership theory: an exploratory application in the restaurant industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 32(3): 363–386.

Asseraf

Shoham

(2017) Destination branding: the role of consumer affinity. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 6(4): 375–384.

Ayed

Toner

Priebe

(2019) Conceptualizing resilience in adult mental health literature: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 92(3): 299–341.

Bagozzi

Burnkrant

(1985) Attitude organization and the attitude-behavior relation: a reply to Dillon and Kumar. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 49(1): 47–57.

Baloglu

(1998) An empirical investigation of attitude theory for tourist destinations: a comparison of visitors and nonvisitors. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 22(3): 211–224.

10.

Bec

McLennan

Moyle

(2016) Community resilience to long-term tourism decline and rejuvenation: a literature review and conceptual model. Current Issues in Tourism 19(5): 431–457.

11.

Beirman

(2003) Restoring tourism destinations in crisis: A strategic marketing approach. Cambridge: CABI Publishing.

12.

Bermes

(2021) Information overload and fake news sharing: a transactional stress perspective exploring the mitigating role of consumers’ resilience during COVID-19. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 61: 102555.

13.

Biggs

Hall

Stoeckl

(2012) The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises to disasters: reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 20(5): 645–665.

14.

Bonanno

Diminich

(2013) Annual research review: positive adjustment to adversity: trajectories of minimal-impact resilience and emergent resilience. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54(4): 378–401.

15.

Britt

Shen

Sinclair

, et al. (2016) How much do we really know about employee resilience? Industrial and Organizational Psychology 9(2): 378–404.

16.

Bryan

O’Shea

MacIntyre

(2019) Stressing the relevance of resilience: a systematic review of resilience across the domains of sport and work. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 12(1): 70–111.

17.

Buckley

Cote

Comstock

(1990) Measurement errors in the behavioral sciences: the case of personality/attitude research. Educational and Psychological Measurement 50(3): 447–474.

18.

Chang

Van Witteloostuijn

Eden

(2010) From the editors: common method variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies 41(2): 178–184.

19.

Chen

Phou

(2013) A closer look at destination: image, personality, relationship and loyalty. Tourism Management 36: 269–278.

20.

Chen

Funk

(2010) Exploring destination image, experience and revisit intention: a comparison of sport and non-sport tourist perceptions. Journal of Sport & Tourism 15(3): 239–259.

21.

Cheng

(2013) Destination image, novelty, hedonics, perceived value, and revisiting behavioral intention for island tourism. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 18(7): 766–783.

22.

Chew

EYT

Jahari

(2014) Destination image as a mediator between perceived risks and revisit intention: a case of post-disaster Japan. Tourism Management 40: 382–393.

23.

Condly

(2006) Resilience in children: a review of literature with implications for education. Urban Education 41(3): 211–236.

24.

Couper

Bosnjak

(2010) Internet surveys. In Wright JD and Marsden PV (eds.) Handbook of Survey Research. San Diego, CA: Elsevier, 527–550.

25.

Cró

Martins

(2017) Structural breaks in international tourism demand: are they caused by crises or disasters? Tourism Management 63: 3–9.

26.

Fazio

(1986) How do attitudes guide behavior? In: Sorrentino

Higgins

(eds) Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 204–243.

27.

Filimonau

De Coteau

(2020) Tourism resilience in the context of integrated destination and disaster management (DM2). International Journal of Tourism Research 22(2): 202–222.

28.

Filimonau

Derqui

Matute

(2020) The COVID-19 pandemic and organisational commitment of senior hotel managers. International Journal of Hospitality Management 91: 102659.

29.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(1975) Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

30.

Fisher

Ragsdale

Fisher

(2019) The importance of definitional and temporal issues in the study of resilience. Applied Psychology 68(4): 583–620.

31.

Flaherty

Nasir

(2020) Reiseangst: travel anxiety and psychological resilience during and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Travel Medicine 27(8): taaa150.

32.

Fletcher

Sarkar

(2013) Psychological resilience: a review and critique of definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist 18(1): 12–23.

33.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18(1): 39–50.

34.

Fountain

Cradock-Henry

(2020) Recovery, risk and resilience: post-disaster tourism experiences in Kaikōura, New Zealand. Tourism Management Perspectives 35: 100695.

35.

Galindo

Batta

(2013) Review of recent developments in OR/MS research in disaster operations management. European Journal of Operational Research 230(2): 201–211.

36.

Graber

Pichon

Carabine

(2015) Psychological resilience. London: Overseas Development Institute.

37.

Guo

Zhang

, et al. (2018) Catalyst or barrier? The influence of place attachment on perceived community resilience in tourism destinations. Sustainability 10(7): 2347.

38.

Hair JF

Babin BJ

Black

(2010) Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (Vol. 7).

39.

Hajibaba

Gretzel

Leisch

, et al. (2015) Crisis-resistant tourists. Annals of Tourism Research 53: 46–60.

40.

Hall

Prayag

Amore

(2018) Tourism and resilience: Individual, organisational and destination perspectives. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Channel View Publications.

41.

Hallmann

Zehrer

Müller

(2015) Perceived destination image: an image model for a winter sports destination and its effect on intention to revisit. Journal of Travel Research 54(1): 94–106.

42.

Hassan

Soliman

(2021) COVID-19 and repeat visitation: assessing the role of destination social responsibility, destination reputation, holidaymakers’ trust and fear arousal. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 19: 100495.

43.

Hayes

(2018) Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.

44.

Hidalgo

Hernandez

(2001) Place attachment: conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 21(3): 273–281.

45.

Hosany

Gilbert

(2010) Measuring tourists’ emotional experiences toward hedonic holiday destinations. Journal of Travel Research 49(4): 513–526.

46.

Hou

Lin

Morais

(2005) Antecedents of attachment to a cultural tourism destination: the case of Hakka and non-Hakka Taiwanese visitors to Pei-Pu, Taiwan. Journal of Travel Research 44(2): 221–233.

47.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.

48.

IJntema

Burger

Schaufeli

(2019) Reviewing the labyrinth of psychological resilience: establishing criteria for resilience-building programs. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 71(4): 288–304.

49.

Isa

Ariyanto

Kiumarsi

(2019) The effect of place attachment on visitors’ revisit intentions: evidence from Batam. Tourism Geographies 22(1): 51–82.

50.

Jalilvand

Samiei

Dini

, et al. (2012) Examining the structural relationships of electronic word of mouth, destination image, tourist attitude toward destination and travel intention: an integrated approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 1(1-2): 134–143.

51.

Jang

Feng

(2007) Temporal destination revisit intention: the effects of novelty seeking and satisfaction. Tourism Management 28(2): 580–590.

52.

Josiassen

Kock

Nørfelt

(2022) Tourism affinity and its effects on tourist and resident behavior. Journal of Travel Research 61(2): 299–313.

53.

Kaplanidou

Jordan

Funk

, et al. (2012) Recurring sport events and destination image perceptions: impact on active sport tourist behavioral intentions and place attachment. Journal of Sport Management 26(3): 237–248.

54.

Kim

Hallab

Kim

(2012) The moderating effect of travel experience in a destination on the relationship between the destination image and the intention to revisit. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 21(5): 486–505.

55.

Kim

Lee

Bonn

(2016) The effect of social capital and altruism on seniors’ revisit intention to social network sites for tourism-related purposes. Tourism Management 53: 96–107.

56.

Kim

Wong

(2006) Effects of news shock on inbound tourist demand volatility in Korea. Journal of Travel Research 44(4): 457–466.

57.

Kim

(2009) The effects of perceived justice on recovery satisfaction, trust, word-of-mouth, and revisit intention in upscale hotels. Tourism Management 30(1): 51–62.

58.

Kirk

Peck

Swain

(2018) Property lines in the mind: consumers’ psychological ownership and their territorial responses. Journal of Consumer Research 45(1): 148–168.

59.

Kolar

(2011) Resilience: revisiting the concept and its utility for social research. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction 9(4): 421–433.

60.

Kumar

Nayak

(2019) Exploring destination psychological ownership among tourists: antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 39: 30–39.

61.

Leiner

(2019) Too fast, too straight, too weird: non-reactive indicators for meaningless data in internet surveys. Survey Research Methods 13(3): 229–248.

62.

Lew

(2018) Grasping for resilience. Tourism Geographies 20(1): 367–369.

63.

Low

(1992) Symbolic ties that bind: place attachment in the plaza. In: Altman

Low

(eds) Place Attachment. New York: Plenum, 165–185.

64.

Luthans

Vogelgesang

Lester

(2006) Developing the psychological capital of resiliency. Human Resource Development Review 5(1): 25–44.

65.

Mackinnon

Fairchild

Fritz

(2007) Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 593.

66.

Mair

Ritchie

Walters

(2016) Towards a research agenda for post-disaster and post-crisis recovery strategies for tourist destinations: a narrative review. Current Issues in Tourism 19(1): 1–26.

67.

Moutinho

(1987) Consumer behaviour in tourism. European Journal of Marketing 21(10): 5–44.

68.

Neubauer

(2020) “Bali fears for future, as Indonesia’s coronavirus cases jump”, available at: www. aljazeera.com/news/2020/03/die-fears-future-indonesia-tourism-hotspot-200319064307505.html.

69.

Norris

Stevens

Pfefferbaum

, et al. (2008) Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community Psychology 41(1-2): 127–150.

70.

Oberecker

Diamantopoulos

(2011) Consumers’ emotional bonds with foreign countries: does consumer affinity affect behavioral intentions? Journal of International Marketing 19(2): 45–72.

71.

Otoo

Kim

(2018) Is there stability underneath health risk resilience in Hong Kong inbound tourism? Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 23(4): 344–358.

72.

Parkany

Gallagher

Viveiros

(2004) Are attitudes important in travel choice? Transportation Research Record 1894(1): 127–139.

73.

Pierce

Jussila

(2010) Collective psychological ownership within the work and organizational context: construct introduction and elaboration. Journal of Organizational Behavior 31(6): 810–834.

74.

Pierce

Jussila

(2011) Psychological ownership and the organizational context: Theory, research evidence, and application. Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

75.

Pierce

Kostova

Dirks

(2001) Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Academy of Management Review 26(2): 298–310.

76.

Pierce

Kostova

Dirks

(2003) The state of psychological ownership: integrating and extending a century of research. Review of General Psychology 7(1): 84–107.

77.

Pierce

Peck

(2018) The history of psychological ownership and its emergence in consumer psychology. In: Peck

Shu

(eds) Psychological Ownership and Consumer Behavior. Cham: Springer, pp. 1–18.

78.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Lee

, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.

79.

Poon

Koay

(2021) Hong Kong Protests and tourism: modelling tourist trust on revisit intention. Journal of Vacation Marketing 27(2): 217–234.

80.

Prayag

(2018) Symbiotic relationship or not? Understanding resilience and crisis management in tourism. Tourism Management Perspectives 25: 133–135.

81.

Prayag

(2020) Time for reset? COVID-19 and tourism resilience. Tourism Review International 24(2-3): 179–184.

82.

Prayag

Chen

Del Chiappa

(2018) Domestic tourists to Sardinia: motivation, overall attitude, attachment, and behavioural intentions. Anatolia 29(1): 84–97.

83.

Prayag

Ryan

(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.

84.

Proshansky

(1978) The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior 10(2): 147–169.

85.

Radic

Law

Lück

, et al. (2020) Apocalypse now or overreaction to coronavirus: the global cruise tourism industry crisis. Sustainability 12(17): 6968.

86.

Ramkissoon

Mavondo

(2015) The satisfaction–place attachment relationship: potential mediators and moderators. Journal of Business Research 68(12): 2593–2602.

87.

Ramkissoon

Smith

LDG

Weiler

(2013) Relationships between place attachment, place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour in an Australian national park. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(3): 434–457.

88.

Rather

(2021) Demystifying the effects of perceived risk and fear on customer engagement, co-creation and revisit intention during COVID-19: a protection motivation theory approach. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 20: 100564.

89.

Reibstein

Lovelock

Dobson

RDP

(1980) The direction of causality between perceptions, affect, and behavior: an application to travel behavior. Journal of Consumer Research 6(4): 370–376.

90.

Ronis

Yates

Kirscht

(1989) Attitudes, decisions, and habits as determinants of repeated behavior. In: Pratkanis

Breckler

Greenwald

(eds) Attitude Structure and Function. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 213–240.

91.

Silva

Correia

(2017) Places and tourists: ties that reinforce behavioural intentions. Anatolia 28(1): 14–30.

92.

Siu

Hui

Phillips

, et al. (2009) A study of resiliency among Chinese health care workers: capacity to cope with workplace stress. Journal of Research in Personality 43(5): 770–776.

93.

Song

Lin

Witt

, et al. (2011) Impact of financial/economic crisis on demand for hotel rooms in Hong Kong. Tourism Management 32(1): 172–186.

94.

Song

Kim

Yim

(2017) The mediating effect of place attachment on the relationship between golf tourism destination image and revisit intention. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research 22(11): 1182–1193.

95.

Sparks

Pan

(2009) Chinese Outbound tourists: understanding their attitudes, constraints and use of information sources. Tourism Management 30(4): 483–494.

96.

Stokols

Shumaker

(1981) People in places: a transactional view of settings. In: Harvey

(ed) Cognition, Social Behavior and Environment. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, 441–488.

97.

Stylos

Vassiliadis

Bellou

, et al. (2016) Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: predictors of intention to revisit a destination. Tourism Management 53: 40–60.

98.

Swanson

Chen

(2016) The effects of perceived service quality on repurchase intentions and subjective well-being of Chinese tourists: the mediating role of relationship quality. Tourism Management 52: 82–95.

99.

Van Breda

(2018) A critical review of resilience theory and its relevance for social work. Social Work 54(1): 1–18.

100.

Westland

(2010) Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications 9(6): 476–487.

101.

Williams

Patterson

Roggenbuck

, et al. (1992) Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Sciences 14(1): 29–46.

102.

Zhang

(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.

103.

Yan

Halpenny

(2022) Tourists’ savoring of positive emotions and place attachment formation: a conceptual paper. Tourism Geographies 24(2-3): 369–389.

104.

Zhang

Buhalis

(2018) A model of perceived image, memorable tourism experiences and revisit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 8: 326–336.

105.

Zhang

(2019) Impact of destination psychological ownership on residents’ ”place citizenship behavior”. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 14: 100391.