Government and social trust vs. hotel response efficacy: A protection motivation perspective on hotel stay intention during the COVID-19 pandemic

Corporal and Cognizant Barriers to Voting: the Impact of COVID-19 on the 2020 Election Season in St. Louis

“…This theory has been applied in numerous studies seeking to understand the decisions of various populations impacted by COVID-19, including health care providers, tourists, consumers, employees in the workplace, and vaccine recipients (Al-Rasheed, 2020;Hsieh et al, 2021;Lin et al, 2021;Rather, 2021;Youn et al, 2021). Organizers engaged in mobilization, as well as the voters, had to evaluate the overall threat of COVID-19, their particular vulnerability to the virus, if there were preventative measures that were effective, and then decide if they had the ability to adhere to those measures.…”

Sustainability in Hospitality Marketing during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Content Analysis of Consumer Empirical Research

“…Consumer generic perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic were examined in relationship with other aspects of consumer behavior directly affecting hospitality businesses, including consumers' preferences [56,59], motivations [28], intentions [27,28,30,62], beliefs, emotions, and desires [29].…”

“…Among the studies that examined consumer intentions during the pandemic, Dedeoglu and Bogan [28] found that two motivations (i.e., sociability and affect regulation) influenced positively visit intention to upscale restaurants and that the impact of some motivation factors were moderated by risk perception and trust in government. Based on protection motivation theory, Hsieh et al [30] analyzed the antecedents of consumer intentions to stay at a hotel during the pandemic. Their results showed that intentions regarding hotel stays were affected negatively by perceived threat of the pandemic and positively by customers' individual response efficacy (measured in terms of wearing a mask, keeping social distance, and washing hands frequently), government and social trust, as well as hotel response efficacy (evaluated through a number of hygiene, health, and safety measures) [30].…”

“…Based on protection motivation theory, Hsieh et al [30] analyzed the antecedents of consumer intentions to stay at a hotel during the pandemic. Their results showed that intentions regarding hotel stays were affected negatively by perceived threat of the pandemic and positively by customers' individual response efficacy (measured in terms of wearing a mask, keeping social distance, and washing hands frequently), government and social trust, as well as hotel response efficacy (evaluated through a number of hygiene, health, and safety measures) [30]. Rastegar et al [62] examined the perceptions of prospective tourists shaped by media towards trust, crisis management, healthcare system, and solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic and the impact of these perceptions on willingness to support a destination and travel intention.…”

“…However, this finding can be explained by the fact that many of the studies which did not adopt this technique used SEM for theory confirmation. These studies were drawing up on already existing theories, models, and/or frameworks, namely: protection motivation theory [28,30,40], perceived risk theory [29,51], theory of planned behavior [34], terror management theory [45], social exclusion theory [45], behavioral reasoning theory [38], innovation resistance theory [57], stimulus-organismresponse model [23,37,40], unified theory of use and acceptance of technology model [49], expectancy confirmation model [49], task-technology fit model [49], big five model of personality traits [65], and appraisal tendency framework [40]. Rather than for theory confirmation, PLS-SEM is more appropriate for theory development in hospitality and tourism research [68].…”