Destination social responsibility as a driver of destination stereotypes and engagement

Abstract

In these turbulent times, destinations fiercely compete to attract tourists to build, sustain, and grow their market share. Fostering a favorable perception about a destination through the stereotyping process can help the destinations achieve the same. Thus, this study delves into the emerging concept of destination stereotyping by applying social exchange and signaling theories. We aim to propose and examine the model exploring one of its essential drivers, i.e., destination social responsibility (DSR), and its outcome destination brand engagement (DBE). We also study destination reputation as the moderator for the relationships among DSR, destination stereotype, and DBE. Using structural equation modeling, a collected sample of 520 respondents was analyzed. Findings reveal that DSR influences destination stereotypes, i.e., destination warmth, destination competence, and DBE. Further, destination competence emerged as a predictor of DBE. However, counterintuitively, destination warmth failed to affect DBE in the context of Indian destinations. Finally, destination reputation exhibited a moderating effect for all the proposed relationships. Destination marketers need to emphasize on developing socially responsible destinations to drive desirable outcomes including perceived warmth, competence and engagement among travelers.

Keywords

destination stereotypes destination warmth destination competence destination social responsibility destination brand engagement

Introduction

With the increase in globalization and competition, consumers are confronted with numerous brands in most product and service categories (Kumar et al., 2023). Consumers tend to follow the stereotyping process to simplify their beliefs and perceptions about these encountered brands (Kolbl et al., 2019), as stereotypes help people process information related to others effectively (Fiske and Taylor, 1991). Stereotyping is described as the process of “categorizing” wherein individuals streamline, organize, and systemize the received information (Vaughan et al., 1981). In social sciences, stereotyping was initially employed to study social communities (Fiske et al., 2002), and its application was later extended to other fields, including brand management (Kervyn et al., 2012) to understand how brands are evaluated from consumers’ perspective (Aaker et al., 2012). Brand stereotype alludes to consumers generalized and oversimplified beliefs about brands as intentional agents (Kervyn et al., 2012; Kolbl et al., 2020). Research suggests that the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) is arguably one of the most widely followed theories of stereotype, with two main dimensions, i.e., warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2007). The stereotypical judgments of warmth and competence play a significant role in affecting consumers’ perceptions of brands (Aaker et al., 2012) because the application of social perception theories and models in branding suggests that consumers tend to perceive the brands in a way as they perceive individuals (Kervyn et al., 2012).

For tourism destinations, understanding consumers’ perceptions about the destination is likely to enhance its competitive advantage (Chen and Hsu, 2021). In this regard, destination brand stereotyping provides a vital structure to comprehend travelers’ perceptions and beliefs, specifically regarding warmth and competence connected with a destination brand (Japutra et al., 2021). Destination stereotypes differ from the brand stereotypes as the former focus on the intentions of the destination in terms of local culture, residents, host community and tourist experiences and their ability to perform on these intentions. Whereas in case of brands, the intentions and the ability to perform on the intentions are primarily related to brand and its firm.

SCM’s application in tourism suggests that individuals are likely to perceive, evaluate, and distinguish the destination brands based on two dimensions of stereotype, i.e., warmth and competence (Feng et al., 2022). Although prior works have explored the role of various factors in affecting destinations stereotypes including destination logo (Li et al., 2023), destination gender personality (Hamdy et al., 2024), destination brand awareness, perceived quality, ideal self-congruence and culture involvement (Japutra et al., 2021), more empirical studies are required to explore the other prominent elements capable of forming favorable destination brand stereotypes and the outcomes of such stereotype (Ivens et al., 2015).

Hence, this research advances scholarship on destination branding in the following ways. First, the study considers DSR the major predictor of destination brand stereotypes. DSR mainly captures the socially responsible behavior of destinations orbiting around practices concerning environment, culture, and local communities, which have become critical in achieving sustainable development (Su and Swanson, 2017). Thus, DSR-related perceptions have a huge potential to develop a stereotype about a destination. Second, we propose DBE as the possible result of destination brand stereotype due to two reasons. First DSR reflects the potential to encourage tourists to engage with a destination in multiple ways. Second prior research suggests that individuals show the propensity to engage with brands reflecting specific favorable characteristics (Van Doorn et al., 2010), for instance competence and credibility. Third, we propose destination brand stereotypes i.e., warmth and competence as the predictor of DBE because destinations perceived as warm and competent are likely to engage the travelers by inducing a sense of admiration and liking (Kumar et al., 2023).

Finally, we test destination reputation as the potential moderator for linkage between DSR and destination brand stereotype and DSR and DBE. We contend that individuals with favorable perceptions of destination reputation would develop favorable and strong stereotypes about the socially responsible destinations in comparison to the individuals with less or no perceptions, as destination reputation can perpetuate favorable attitudes, intentions, and behavior towards the destination (Su et al., 2018).

Literature review and hypotheses development

Social exchange theory and signaling theory in tourism

Social exchange theory captures social exchanges in activities between at least two individuals associated with a reward and cost structure in that interaction (Emerson, 1987). Its application in tourism literature mainly applies to the host-guest relationship, which is not only limited to economic rewards but also extends to social, cultural, and environmental factors (Nunkoo, 2016). The association of these factors builds a positive attitude toward visitors, signifying community tourism development (Ward and Berno, 2011). Social exchange theory also addresses the heterogeneous nature of host interactions in the context of tourism (Nunkoo et al., 2013). Signaling theory finds its applications in various management disciplines. It refers to the meaningful communication between two parties contingent upon exchanging information (signals), emphasizing minimizing the asymmetry in the signals since different people possess different knowledge (Connelly et al., 2011). Signaling theory holds a distinctive position within tourism literature due to its application in reducing information asymmetry, a common challenge faced by tourist destinations that arises from the tourists’ limited ability to acquire advanced knowledge or prior experience of the destination (Baggio, 2011). DSR helps destinations observably project themselves as socially benevolent and committed to bringing desirable societal, environmental, commercial and cultural transformations while keeping tourists experience intact (Su et al., 2017, 2018). In such contexts, the tenets of signaling theory can be reconciliatory in the face of information asymmetry among destination stakeholders when DSR actions are capable of being signals of destination stewardship to the others (Nguyen, 2025).

Building upon both social exchange theory and signaling theory, we propose investigating the link between DSR (host’s actions), destination stereotype (guest’s perceptions), and tourist-destination engagement (guest’s motivation). Social exchange theory offers a theoretical base to understand the initiatives related to the social responsibility of a destination on its evaluation made by tourists. In simple words, the tourists would evaluate a destination favorably if they perceive the benefits associated with the socially responsible behavior of that destination outweigh the costs they incurred while visiting that destination. We argue that tourists would like to engage more with such destinations. Further, we argue that DSR initiatives would signal a destination commitment towards preserving the environment, culture, and social values to the tourists that may translate into favorable outcomes, i.e., destination stereotyping and tourist-destination engagement.

Stereotype to destination stereotype

What governs our interaction with other individuals? In social psychology, two types of dimensions are mentioned to encapsulate social judgment, namely, warmth and competence (Kervyn et al., 2022). These two dimensions of group stereotype were propounded by Fiske et al. (2002) in the theory of stereotype content model (SCM) which underlines the idea that people would be highly interested to know about the intent of another person and, accordingly, after effects of their intent are what they would like to seek (Fiske et al., 2007). Brand warmth refers to the brand’s intentions and is primarily recorded through identifiers, including warm, good-natured, kind, etc., whereas brand competence signifies the capability of the brand to enact such intentions (Fiske et al., 2002; Kolbl et al., 2020). Although warmth is generally advocated over competence (Kull et al., 2021), some research also presents an alternative perspective (Fousiani et al., 2023). The brand stereotypes have been differentiated from other related but different constructs, like brand personality and brand image. Brand personality differs from brand stereotype as it refers to “the set of human characteristics associated with a brand” (Aaker, 1997). Whereas, brand stereotype refers to consumers generalized and uncomplicated perspectives on brands as intentional agents (Kervyn et al., 2012). Further, the brand image differs from brand stereotype as the former generally captures ‘cognitive,’ ‘emotional,’ and ‘sensory’ associations (Cho and Fiore, 2015). In contrast, brand stereotype effectively captures individuals’ ‘value perception’ on various dimensions like functional, emotional, and social (Kolbl et al., 2020). To date SCM framework has been applied across various objects, including brands (Kervyn et al., 2012, 2022), organizations (Kim et al., 2021), and animals (Wang et al., 2020).

Nevertheless, in the destinations’ context, the application of SCM is minimal to date (Lee et al., 2021). Destination stereotypes may act as an effective tool for building a destination image (Shen et al., 2019) by predicting the tourists’ perceptions toward the destination and its offerings. Research delineates how the connection between cognitive aspects, emotional aspects and geographic proximity aids in the generation of destination stereotypes, thereby affecting attachment level for the destination brand (Japutra et al., 2021). Furthermore, the association of destination stereotypes and certain demographic variables, including age and education, are documented to have a causal relationship with revisit intentions (Shen et al., 2019). In a nutshell, SCM has the potential to offer tourism researchers a valuable basis to understand the nuances of tourist behavior toward destinations.

Destination social responsibility, destination warmth, and destination competence

DSR has emerged as a valuable construct in tourism research as it has the potential to affect the sustainable development of destinations (Lee et al., 2021). Due to the increasing importance of this construct, researchers have offered varied conceptualizations of DSR (Su et al., 2017). For instance, Su and Swanson (2017) define it as a factor that “includes stakeholder activities that protect and improve the social and environmental interests of an entire destination, in addition to the economic interests of the individual organizations” (p. 309). Primarily, the majority of DSR conceptualizations have treated it as a multi-dimensional construct comprising different dimensions such as economic, environmental, social, stakeholders, ethical, legal, and voluntariness. Further, DSR is viewed as a multi-stakeholder ideological approach to destinations aimed at socially benevolent conduct determined to effect beneficial change to destinations’ society (people), environment (planet), economics (profit), and culture (Su et al., 2018). DSR integrates the tourism product offerings, the social and environmental conscience, and tourists’ preferences and tastes (Su et al., 2017), and has been found to favourably affect residents’ support for tourism (Agapito et al., 2022) alongside their perceived tourism economic and socio-cultural impacts (Al-Sakkaf et., 2024), tourist loyalty (Saleh, 2023), locals’ quality of life (Su et al., 2020). A recent surge in the theoretical exposition on DSR has witnessed the application of different theories to explain its role in affecting different stakeholders’ attitudes, perceptions, and behavior toward the destination such as attribution theory (Su et al., 2020; Su et al., 2020), social exchange theory (Su et al., 2017), stakeholder theory (Su et al., 2020), and nudge theory (Lee et al., 2021). DSR is effective in increasing destination loyalty (García-Rodríguez and Armas-Cruz, 2007), enhancing destination reputation (Su and Huang, 2010), strengthening residents’ sentiments toward positive tourism impacts, and subduing negative impacts (Su et al., 2018), improving residents backing toward destination development (Su et al., 2020), among others. From the above discussion, while the DSR’s relevance in residents’ context is established, tourists employ this as a cue to infer warmth, which in turn is the focus of current investigation.

Research affirms that responsible users alleviate envy within social groups and are perceived as “warm” (Antonetti and Maklan, 2016). Also, from an evolutionary perspective, warmth manifests if an individual or group holds and exhibits congenial intentions (Fiske et al., 2007). Correspondingly, SCM considers competence and warmth as the cardinal dimensions capable of characterizing various group and individual perceptions based on the relative harm or benefit they can bestow upon themselves or the group (Antonetti and Maklan, 2016). In the CSR context, Alvarez and Fournier (2016) proposed increasing consumers’ perceived warmth in the presence of favorable acknowledgment of CSR initiatives. For destinations, amid increased scrutiny and mounting pressures on stakeholders to generate net benefits for locals (economic, societal, and environmental), the concept of DSR has become pertinent for decision-makers. Commensurately, the assessment of warmth alludes to the affirmative social traits such as trustworthiness, tolerance, friendliness, and sincerity, which is consistent with the essence enshrined in the DSR concept, representing an applied approach to mitigating unsavoury effects and bettering the local community holistically (Su et al., 2019). The subtle association of one of the universal dimensions of brand stereotype, i.e., brand warmth, in destination branding context makes a case for its association with DSR as a predictor.

DSR influences destination warmth positively.

Another critical dimension of brand stereotype is competence, which projects the ability to enact noble intentions (Kolbl et al., 2020). Competence connotes the affordance or the goal achievement dimension that signals efficiency, activeness, and intensity (Wojciszke and Abele, 2008). In marketing literature, the inference that the competence dimension is associated with delivering efficiency and ability is prominently assumed in the backdrop of brands (Kolbl et al., 2020). Similarly, tourism destinations are being branded due to increasing competition and substitutability among destinations. Therefore, it becomes important for the destinations to communicate their ability to fulfill tourists’ expectations by executing the intentions manifested through socially responsible actions and initiatives. We argue that destinations engender perceptions of sincerity, trustworthiness, and morality and reflect the ability to deploy resources toward their commitment to society and the environment (Xie and Lee, 2013). Further, destinations also possess carrying capacities that make them prone to scrutiny due to rising environmental and social concerns (McCool and Lime, 2001). Consequently, it becomes implicit for destination brands to not only commit to social responsibility but also exhibit the capability to actualize the change in terms of implementation encapsulated in the competence dimension.

DSR influences destination competence positively.

Destination brand engagement, destination warmth, and destination competence

Engagement has emerged as a central marketing concept studied across different product categories, including tourism destinations (Kumar & Kaushik, 2020, 2022). Literature primarily reflects two schools of thought about customer engagement’ conceptualization. One stream treats it as a motivational state (Van Doorn et al., 2010), whereas other views it as a psychological state (Hollebeek et al., 2014). For instance, from a motivational perspective, customer engagement is “the behavioral manifestation of relationship that goes beyond purchase transactions focused on firms and brands and resulting from motivational drivers” (Van Doorn et al., 2010). The synthesis of existing literature on engagement largely suggests it as a motivational and context-dependent psychological state comprising mainly cognitive, affective, and behavioral dimensions (France et al., 2016; Kull et al., 2021).

While brand engagement studies gained momentum more than a decade ago (Hollebeek et al., 2014), tourism research has recently adapted and utilized the theoretical underpinnings of engagement to tourism destinations (Kumar and Kaushik, 2020). Destination engagement can result in favorable outcomes, including enhanced tourist loyalty (Chen and Rahman, 2018), higher trust (Harrigan et al., 2017), and improved brand evaluation (So et al., 2014), among others. Engaged tourists tend to exhibit interest in writing destination reviews, sharing experiences with other online community members, and creating video, audio, or written content (Shin and Perdue, 2022) with diverse motivations.

Brands as intentional agents’ framework (BIAF) considers that warmth instils specific emotions among consumers toward the brands (Kervyn et al., 2022). Research also shows that brand warmth can elicit stronger affective and behavioral responses (Kolbl et al., 2020). Consumers tend to admire the brands they perceive as high on warmth (Ivens et al., 2015). In the tourism context, destination warmth has been shown to drive destination brand attachment (Japutra et al., 2021). Although some research demonstrates the capability of brand warmth in inducing brand engagement in specific product categories (Kull et al., 2021), there is a need for further research to testify this relationship in other product or service categories across different contexts including tourism destinations. Accordingly, we argue that individuals who find a destination as warm, likely display intentions to engage with it further and strengthen the sensations of pride and esteem (Fiske et al., 2002). Further to this line of reasoning, Tse and Tung (2022) outline how, destinations perceived to be championing traits of civility, politeness and friendliness can harness potential benefits emanating from pleasant tourist interactions and socialisation.

Destination warmth has a positive influence on DBE.

Kervyn et al. (2022) showed that brand competence-related judgments are triggered when individuals acknowledge product attributes. Similarly, in destination branding, tourism products are assessed for their inherent attributes, and these attributes result in the tourist experience (Barnes et al., 2014). Destination brands can evoke an interpretation of competence in tourists’ psyches when acknowledging destination attributes. Also, the customers develop expectations from competent brands, enhancing their perceived relationship quality (Valta, 2013). Such quality relationship is vital to individuals displaying engagement behaviour towards the target brand (Fernandes and Moreira, 2019). While warmth remains a primary element in evaluative judgments, according to the SCM framework, individuals also evaluate competence as secondary yet crucial dimension (Fiske et al., 2002). As research suggests that trust favorably engenders consumer engagement (Osei-Frimpong et al., 2020), and competence and trust have been shown as inextricably linked concepts in both theory and practice (Chen and Dhillon, 2003), we posit that competence in the context of destination brands can instill an urge among the tourists to engage with them (Varghese, 2016).

Destination competence influences DBE positively.

Destination social responsibility - Destination brand engagement

DSR alludes to the destinations seen as benevolent (Su et al., 2016) and contributors to trust, quality of life, satisfaction, and emotions for locals and visitors (Agapito et al., 2022). The branding literature also emphasizes brand engagement as a strong customer affirmation, particularly in the backdrop of social-cause-related activities pursued by firms or brands (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002). In line with corporate heuristics, DSR entails the onus of the key destination stakeholders to generate economic benefits and contribute to the overall welfare by diminishing social, environmental, and economic costs (Su et al., 2018). Given this, tourists are likely to display higher engagement behaviour towards such perceived socially responsible destinations (Lee et al., 2021; Su & Swanson, 2017).

DSR has a positive influence on DBE.

Moderating the role of destination reputation

Destination reputation is “the collective impression the destination stakeholders create on the tourists who view destination facilities, built environment, functional and symbolic benefits in gestalt” (Rather et al., 2023). Destination reputation is considered the assemblage of tourists’ evaluative judgments over time or the public’s general feelings (Artigas et al., 2015). It represents the collective appraisal of the destination’s social, environmental, and financial impact (Rather et al., 2023). By and large, destination reputation embodies the attitudes, perceptions, and opinions of distinct stakeholders comprising hosts, visitors, and the host community. Destination reputation can alter the association between DSR and destination stereotype, i.e., destination warmth and competence, depending on consumers’ perceptions of destination reputation. In other words, the individuals who perceive a destination as having a high reputation would also perceive it as weighty in warmth and competence, as opposed to those who perceive it to possess a lower reputation. The rationale behind this argument lies in the ability of a destination’s reputation to affect the attitudes and behaviour of tourists towards the destination (Loureiro and Kastenholz, 2011). Further, as the favorable destination reputation strengthens the destination image (Leblanc and Nguyen, 1996), such a developed favorable image would complement the effectiveness of perceived DSR in affecting consumers’ evaluation of that destination as warm and competent. Consequently, tourists are likely to interpret DSR activities more favourably in light of the stronger reputation as they feel such acts as intrinsically driven, which by contrast, in the case of weaker reputation is viewed as chiefly external and purposeful, thereby weakens warmth interpretations (Su et al., 2020).

Also, we postulate that destination reputation can moderate the link between DSR and DBE as higher destination reputation leads to higher trust (Johnson and Grayson, 2005), which can instil a greater inclination among tourists to engage with the perceived socially responsible destination (Liu et al., 2014). Moreover, a high destination reputation can strengthen the effect of DSR on destination engagement by imbuing a favorable attitude and behavioural intentions among the tourists. Past research also highlights that if a highly reputed organization indulges in socially responsible activities, individuals attribute those actions driven by intrinsic motives, which can ultimately influence people’s attitudes towards the concerned organization (Su et al., 2020).

Destination reputation moderates the relationship between (i) DSR and destination warmth, (ii) DSR and destination competence, and (iii) DSR and DBE.

Methodology

Measures

All the study’s constructs were examined using the existing scales in the literature. DSR is measured through six items that capture the social, economic, environmental, stakeholder, and voluntariness dimensions (Su et al., 2018; Su and Swanson, 2017). Destination brand stereotypes, i.e., destination warmth and destination competence, are assessed through four items taken from Aaker et al. (2010). We adopted the scale proposed by So et al. (2014) to measure DBE. Finally, destination reputation is measured through a five-item scale developed by Artigas et al. (2015). These scales were chosen for this study as they have already been validated in the context of destination brands. All the scale items were assessed with a 7-point Likert scale with endpoints “1 = strongly disagree” and “7 = strongly agree”.

Survey instrument and data collection

We collected data in India and through online mode. Respondents were presented with a succinct introduction to the study and its objectives. We applied convenience sampling criteria, in which respondents to have visited at least one tourism destination within the past year. The survey link was shared through popular social media channel i.e., Facebook in addition to the email outreach. In Facebook, we posted the link of the survey in discussion groups related to travel discussions. For emails, we used an email list of around 4000 individuals with a diverse socio-demographic profiles. 546 responses were received over five weeks after giving multiple reminders. After the screening, only 520 responses were deemed usable. A representative sample revealed slightly higher male participants (58.65%) than females (41.35%). Regarding age representation, more than half of the sample belonged to the young age group (52.88%), specifically in the 18-30 years range. This aligns with the demographic fact that more than half of the Indian population (52%) is young. Most respondents (55.77%) were undergraduates, followed by those with postgraduate or doctoral degrees (33.85%). Regarding occupation, employed individuals constituted the largest group (48.85%), followed by students (35.96%). Furthermore, 57.69% of respondents were single, while 40% were married. The majority of the sampled respondents reported destinations covering North India (46.6%), followed by East India (22.3%), South India (11.5%), West India (6.1%), while 7.3% mentioned the destinations from other parts of India. Additionally, 6.1% of the sampled respondents mentioned foreign destinations. Details are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Sample characteristics.

Characteristics	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Characteristics	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender			Visit frequency
Male	305	58.65	Once	307	59.04
Female	215	41.35	More than once	213	40.96
Age			Marital status
18–30	275	52.88	Single	300	57.69
31–40	192	36.92	Married	208	40.00
41–50	27	5.19	Not prefer to say	12	2.31
More than 50	26	5.00
Education			Occupation
High school	42	8.08	Employed	254	48.85
College or university degree	290	55.77	Self-employed	49	9.42
Master or doctoral degree	176	33.85	Student	187	35.96
Others	12	2.31	Others	30	5.77

Results

Measurement model

Data analysis was performed in two steps. First, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to test reliability, validity, and fitness of the measurement model The following fit indices suggested a good model fit: (χ2/d (f) = 2.458, CFI = 0.956, IFI = .956, SRMR = 0.045, RMSEA = 0.036) (Hair et al., 2010). To check the reliability, composite reliability values ranged between 0.751 and 0.962. The model’s reliability was established as the values were more than 0.7. Further, convergent and discriminant validity were tested to confirm the model’s validity. To check convergent validity, first, the factor loadings checked and were found significant than the recommended value of 0.6. Further, the AVE values of all the constructs exceeded the recommended value of 0.5. Hence, the model demonstrated the convergent validity. Discriminant validity was tested through the method recommended by Fornell and Larcker (1981), which suggests that to establish discriminant validity, the values of correlation between any constructs of the model should be less than the square root of the AVE value of any construct. As this condition was also fulfilled the model exhibited discriminant validity (Tables 2 and 3).

Table 2.

Measurement items.

Construct	Original items	Standardized Loadings (SL)	Composite Reliability (CR)	AVE
Destination Social Responsibility (DSR)			0.916	0.647
	My destination seems to include environmental concerns in its operations (DSR1)	0.687
	My destination gives back to the local community (DSR2)	0.775
	My destination seems to be successful in their profitability (DSR3)	0.840
	My destination treats us well (DSR4)	0.876
	My destination seems depends on ethical values and beyond legal obligations (DSR5)	0.807
	My destination considers health and safety issues in its operations (DSR6)	0.826
Destination Brand Reputation (DBR)			0.957	0.816
	This destination has a very good reputation (DBR1)	0.890
	This destination has a better reputation than other similar places (DBR2)	0.891
	People respect this destination highly (DBR3)	0.942
	People speak very well of this destination (DBR4)	0.937
	This destination’s good reputation is backed up by its history (DBR5)	0.855
Destination Brand Engagement (DBE) – Identification (ID)			0.910	0.717
	When someone criticizes this destination, it feels like a personal insult (ID1)	0.750
	When I talk about this destination, I usually say we rather than they (ID2)	0.829
	This destination’s successes are my successes (ID3)	0.885
	When someone praises this destination, it feels like a personal compliment (ID4)	0.914
Enthusiasm (EN)			0.952	0.800
	I Am heavily into this destination (EN1)	0.890
	I Am passionate about this destination (EN2)	0.899
	I Am enthusiastic about this destination (EN3)	0.929
	I Feel excited about this destination (EN4)	0.906
	I Love this destination (EN5)	0.846
Attention (AT)			0.955	0.809
	I Like to learn more about this destination (AT1)	0.905
	I Pay a lot of attention to anything about this destination (AT2)	0.888
	Anything related to this destination grabs my attention (AT3)	0.899
	I Concentrate a lot on this destination (AT4)	0.911
	I Like learning more about this destination (AT5)	0.895
Absorption (AB)			0.962	0.806
	When I am interacting with the destination, I forget everything else around me (AB1)	0.889
	Time flies when I am interacting with the destination (AB2)	0.897
	When I am interacting with destination, I get carried away (AB3)	0.921
	When interacting with the destination, it is difficult to detach myself (AB4)	0.907
	In my interaction with the destination, I am immersed (AB5)	0.910
	When interacting with the destination intensely, I feel happy (AB6)	0.863
Interaction (IT)			0.955	0.809
	In general, I like to get involved in destination brand community discussions (IT1)	0.893
	I Am someone who enjoys interacting with like-minded others in the destination brand community (IT2)	0.911
	I Am someone who likes actively participating in destination brand community discussions (IT3)	0.934
	In general, I thoroughly enjoy exchanging ideas with other people in the destination brand community (IT4)	0.919
	I Often participate in activities of the destination brand community (IT5)	0.836
Destination Warmth (DW)			0.751	0.611
	Please rate the extent to which this destination is: [Warm] (DW1)	0.607
	Please rate the extent to which this destination is: [Generous] (DW2)	0.924
Destination Competence (DC)			0.872	0.773
	Please rate the extent to which this destination is: [Competent] (DC1)	0.866
	Please rate the extent to which this destination is: [Effective] (DC2)	0.892

Note. AVE: average variance extracted.

Table 3.

Discriminant validity.

Constructs	DSR	DW	DC	DR	ID	EN	AT	AB	IT
Destination Social Responsibility (DSR)	0.804
Destination Warmth (DW)	0.541	0.782
Destination Competence (DC)	0.542	0.735	0.879
Destination Reputation (DR)	0.714	0.468	0.477	0.904
Identification (ID)	0.639	0.405	0.408	0.615	0.847
Enthusiasm (EN)	0.637	0.444	0.458	0.635	0.773	0.894
Attention (AT)	0.705	0.513	0.494	0.666	0.794	0.811	0.900
Absorption (AB)	0.625	0.584	0.473	0.584	0.796	0.770	0.826	0.898
Interaction (IT)	0.608	0.402	0.466	0.571	0.769	0.694	0.769	0.825	0.899

Note. The diagonal items in bold italic are the square root of AVEs values.

Structural model and hypothesis testing

Post measurement model validation, we tested the structural model through structural equation modelling (SEM) in AMOS v.26. The fit indices were as follows: (χ2/d (f) = 2.909, CFI = 0.947, IFI = .947, SRMR = 0.045, RMSEA = 0.061) (Hair et al., 2010). Hence, a good model fit was achieved. Then, we tested the hypotheses (refer to Table 4). Hypothesis H1 was accepted (β = 0.568, p < 0.01), thus the relationship between DSR and destination brand warmth was confirmed. H2 stating the relationship between DSR and destination competence was also accepted (β = 0.563, p < 0.01). However, hypothesis H3, contrary to our prediction, was rejected (β = 0.069, p > 0.05). Thus, in this study, destination warmth failed to influence DBE. Further, H4 depicting the linkage between destination competence and DBE was accepted (β = 0.124, p < 0.01). Finally, H5 was also accepted (β = 0.624, p < 0.01), establishing the relationship between DSR and DBE.

Table 4.

Hypothesis results.

Hypothesised relationships	Standardised loadings (β)	Critical ratio	Result
H1: DSR → DW	0.568**	7.901	Accept
H2: DSR → DC	0.563**	12.290	Accept
H3: DW → DBE	0.069^ns	1.535	Reject
H4: DC → DBE	0.124*	2.806	Accept
H5: DSR → DBE	0.624**	10.099	Accept
Squared multiple correlations	(R²)
DW	0.322
DC	0.317
DBE	0.551

**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, ns = non-significant.

Moderation analysis

The moderation analysis to check the moderating effect of the destination reputation in the model was performed using continuous interaction method (Kenny and Judd, 1984). This method states that if the interaction effect on the dependent variable is significant, the moderation exists. An interaction term was created by multiplying the mean centred values of DSR and destination reputation. Along with the other predictor variables, the effect of this interaction term was run in the SEM. Table 5 highlights the results of this analysis. The results suggests that the moderation effect of destination reputation on the effect of destination social responsibility on destination warmth (β = −0.045, p > 0.05) and destination competence (β = −0.050, p > 0.05) were not significant. However, destination reputation moderates the relationship between DSR and DBE in a negative way (β = −0.163, p < 0.01). It means that at low destination reputation, destination social responsibility strongly predicts destination engagement and at high destination reputation the effect of destination social responsibility on destination engagement is weaker.

Table 5.

Moderated model analysis.

Hypothesized path	Standardised loadings (β)	Result
H6: DSR*DR → DW	−0.045^ns	Reject
H7: DSR*DR → DC	−0.050^ns	Reject
H8: DSR*DR → DBE	−0.163*	Accept

β: Standardized path estimate; ns: not significant.

*p < 0.01, ns = not significant.

Discussion and implications

The present study applies social exchange and signaling theories to investigate the association between DSR and DBE through destination brand stereotypes, i.e., destination warmth and destination competence. The results revealed positive associations between DSR and destination brand stereotype dimensions. These findings may align with the observations on corporate social responsibility’s association with perceived warmth and competence (Alvarez and Fournier, 2016). Findings further reveal that tourists are likely to consider a destination competent and warm if they perceive it as socially responsible. However, only the latter positively impacted DBE in the ensuing evaluation of the causal association of destination warmth and destination competence with DBE. Thus, this finding supported the partial theoretical postulation considered in the study and may be inferred as the primacy of competence over warmth for destination brands in the context of socially responsible destinations. This finding suggests that tourists value a socially responsible destination’s ability to deliver on social commitments to actuate engagement among tourists.

Another essential contribution of the study is towards the proposal and examination of destination reputation’s moderation in the link between DSR, destination brand stereotype, and DBE. The results suggest moderating effect of destination reputation on the relationship between DSR and DBE. Further, the effect was higher for the individuals who perceive a destination as less reputed than those with high reputation perceptions. This finding was contrary to the anticipated effect and may be interpreted as tourists’ tendency to view DSR as a general and routine expectation from highly reputed destinations, however it gets more conspicuous and can be valuable for destinations with lower reputations. Given the backdrop of study i.e. Indian travelers, this holds relevance for both scholarship and practice. Thus, we suggest that the destinations with low reputation among the travelers should focus more on showcasing the socially responsible initiatives to the targeted audience to generate favorable tourist behaviour toward such destinations. These findings hold significant theoretical and managerial implications, elaborated in the subsequent sections.

Theoretical implications

Some relevant theoretical contributions are made through the current study. First, findings confirmed a positive link between DSR and the dimensions of destination brand stereotype, viz., destination warmth and destination competence. Utilizing the framework of social exchange theory, the study widens the theory’s application to tourism research by explaining the reciprocity manifested in the destination-tourist relationship that results in the formation of destination warmth and competence. The novelty is that perceived fairness in the social exchange, i.e., DSR (host’s actions), results in favorable perceptions, i.e., destination warmth and destination competence that finally translate into DBE (tourists’ response).

Second, the study’s premise of signaling theory was employed to probe the causal linkage between DSR, destination stereotype, and DBE. Thus, findings suggest that tourists prefer to uphold relationships with destinations that signal practices of fair exchange of resources and values to the extent that such relationships manifest in various formats of destination engagement. Similar past findings related to perceived warmth and perceived competence, alongside behavioral intentions, have been observed in the context of hospitality consumers (Gao and Mattila, 2014). Third, while the past literature has primarily emphasized the suitability of warmth and competence dimensions of SCM with that of destination image (Shen et al., 2019), researchers have rarely quantified the scope of effect placed by either of these dimensions on more intricate outcomes, such as the DBE. In this line, the findings reveal a significant association between destination competence and DBE; however, it must also be noted that the results did not support the relationship between destination warmth and DBE. This highlights the deviation from traditional conceptualisation of downstream consequences of warmth outlined in the theory, and hints at latent boundary conditions toward SCM’s universality.

Fourth, whereas existing literature lends support for the notion of destination stereotype, i.e., warmth and competence resulting in destination brand attachment (Japutra et al., 2021; Shen et al., 2019), current work confirms the influence DSR can have in inducing DBE, which corroborates with similar but limited findings in the existing literature (Hoeffler and Keller, 2002; Lee et al., 2021; Su & Swanson, 2017). Finally, the study proposes and investigates destination reputation as a moderator for the relationship between DSR, destination stereotype (i.e., destination warmth and destination competence), and DBE. However, the investigation led to the recognition of destination reputation’s ability to alter the impact of DSR on DBE only.

Managerial implications

The study offers various insights into the tourism industry. First, the positive association between DSR and destination warmth and destination competence suggests to destination marketers the importance of creating perceptions of DSR to achieve competitive advantage. Activeness on the DSR front can help create visitors’ opinions on sensitive social and environmental issues, drawing a robust image of destinations as hospitable and agents of needed change. The study urges decision-makers to refer to DSR as a strategic tool aligned with overarching destination development goals. For instance, destination marketers can develop communication strategies to dispense information about the activities underscoring DSR commitments. Messages of destination initiatives to support culture, society, environment, and ethical vows can be communicated using diverse media platforms to reach broader segments of current and prospective visitors.

Second, destination marketers are encouraged to leverage the perceptions of destination competence and DSR to induce engagement among tourists. For instance, destination marketers can highlight the destination’s ability to deliver on its initiatives and intentions as perceived by the tourists. DBE should be viewed as a driver of future destination visitation and as a medium of destination knowledge enrichment among other tourists. Such initiatives can highlight destination stewardship and orientation toward DSR while projecting alongside commitment to sustainable practices and overall destination community well-being. Also, the associated travel literature and branding campaigns should reinforce such attributes to prospective travellers. It may also be noted that visitors expect destination brands to be more accountable of their actions.

Finally, destination reputation manifested as a significant moderator in the DSR and DBE link. However, contrary to our expectations, the destinations with low reputations tend to have strengthened the effect of DSR on DBE. Thus, destination marketers are encouraged to allocate their major resources to socially responsible initiatives compared to efforts required to build the destination reputation. Moreover, this finding is crucial for destinations perceived as low on reputation, as they can indulge in socially responsible actions to mitigate the effect of low destination brand reputation. In the similar vein, many destinations continue to evolve or are on the path of recovery, and may not be the beneficiaries of strong reputational gains, so as the findings suggest, if credible non-tokenistic DSR initiatives are integrated in destination marketing plans, tourists’ engagement response may be more pronounced and amplified. While past research shows relevance of sustainability certifications for the tourists in the West (Blancas et al., 2015) and cultural experience in the East Asian context (Li et al., 2023), findings from this study may be viewed as Indian tourists prioritising affordability (competence signalling) along with evidence of pro-social and responsible practices. It is also important to underscore the enormity of domestic tourism in India over international tourism, which is about 130 times the overseas inflow (Ministry of TourismGovernment of India, 2025), and makes it indispensable to assess the Indian perspectives as compared to countries where the latter is predominant. Alongside this, Indian destinations, despite the pull-appeal, are frequently faced with the challenge of overcrowding, hygiene and infrastructural bottlenecks that often result in unsavoury experience (Parsa et al., 2020; Tiwari and Rani, 2024). These arguments further strengthen the rationale for studies related to DSR signalling, stereotype and subsequent behavioural intentions for both theory and practice.

Limitations and future research agenda

While this work makes a pertinent contribution to the extant scholarship, it contains certain limitations that can be remedied in future studies. First, this study focuses on the Indian context; as a result, a word of caution may be raised about generalizing the findings in other spatial and cultural geographies. Second, future research may examine the significance of other prominent factors in shaping destination brand stereotypes, such as gender, marketing mix, and positioning. Third, we attempted to determine an association between destination warmth and DBE; the results did not support the postulated relationship. Thus, we call for further investigation into this relationship across different tourism milieus, cultures, and contexts. Fourth, although we have studied the role of destination reputation as a moderator, we suggest researchers further explore other possible moderators for the proposed relationships. Finally, as the majority of the respondents are from 18 to 30 and 31-40 age groups, the results of this study should be generalized accordingly. Hence, we call for future research covering other age groups (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Vikas Kumar

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Author biographies

Dr. Vikas Kumar is an Associate Professor in the area of marketing management at Indian Institute of Management Sirmaur. His areas of research interests are product branding, destination branding and tourism research. He has published a number of articles in international journals of repute such as Journal of Business Research, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, Marketing, Intelligence & Planning, Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, Tourism Management Perspectives etc.

Dr. Vikrant Kaushal is an Associate Professor at the Indian Institute of Management Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, India. His area of research includes Destination Branding, Sustainable Development and Management, Educational Perspectives in Tourism and Hospitality, and Higher Education Marketing and Branding. He has published a number of articles in international journals of repute such as International Journal of Hospitality Management, Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, Marketing, Intelligence & Planning, Journal of Vacation Marketing etc.

Dr. Mohit Sharma, Assistant Professor at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University (RPCAU), Bihar, India. Dr. Sharma had research engagement with NABARD, DBT sponsored projects and presently his research projects are on rural development, agritourism, business models for FPOs in the state of Bihar. His research interests are Agri tourism, Agripreneurship development, Food safety standards and certifications, Value chain assessment, International Agribusiness trade dynamics. He has wide range of academic publication in various national and international journals of repute.

References

Aaker

(1997) Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 34(3): 347–356.

Aaker

Vohs

Mogilner

(2010) Non-profits are seen as warm and for-profits as competent: firm stereotype matter. Journal of Consumer Research 37(2): 224–237.

Aaker

Garbinsky

Vohs

(2012) Cultivating admiration in brands: warmth, competence, and landing in the “golden quadrant”. Journal of Consumer Psychology 22(2): 191–194.

Agapito

Kronenburg

Pinto

(2022) A review on destination social responsibility: towards a research agenda. Current Issues in Tourism 26: 1–19.

Alvarez

Fournier

(2016) Consumers’ relationships with brands. Current Opinion in Psychology 10: 129–135.

Antonetti

Maklan

(2016) Hippies, greenies, and tree huggers: how the “warmth” stereotype hinders the adoption of responsible brands. Psychology and Marketing 33(10): 796–813.

Artigas

Vilches-Montero

Yrigoyen

(2015) Antecedents of tourism destination reputation: the mediating role of familiarity. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 26: 147–152.

Baggio

(2011) Collaboration and cooperation in a tourism destination: a network science approach. Current Issues in Tourism 14(2): 183–189.

Barnes

Mattsson

Sørensen

(2014) Destination brand experience and visitor behavior: testing a scale in the tourism context. Annals of Tourism Research 48: 121–139.

10.

Blancas

Lozano-Oyola

González

(2015) A European sustainable tourism labels proposal using a composite indicator. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 54: 39–54.

11.

Chen

Dhillon

(2003) Interpreting dimensions of consumer trust in e-commerce. Information Technology and Management 4: 303–318.

12.

Chen

Hsu

(2021) Tourist stereotype content: dimensions and accessibility. Annals of Tourism Research 89: 103212.

13.

Chen

Rahman

(2018) Cultural tourism: an analysis of engagement, cultural contact, memorable tourism experience and destination loyalty. Tourism Management Perspectives 26: 153–163.

14.

Cho

Fiore

(2015) Conceptualization of a holistic brand image measure for fashion-related brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32(4): 255–265.

15.

Connelly

Certo

Ireland

, et al. (2011) Signaling theory: a review and assessment. Journal of Management 37(1): 39–67.

16.

Emerson

(1987). Social exchange theory.

17.

Feng

Liu

(2022) Emotional or rational? The congruence effect of message appeals and country stereotype on tourists' international travel intentions. Annals of Tourism Research 95: 103423.

18.

Fernandes

Moreira

(2019) Consumer brand engagement, satisfaction and brand loyalty: a comparative study between functional and emotional brand relationships. The Journal of Product and Brand Management.

19.

Fiske

Taylor

(1991) Social Cognition. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.

20.

Fiske

Cuddy

AJC

Glick

, et al. (2002) A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82: 878–902.

21.

Fiske

Cuddy

Glick

(2007) Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11(2): 77–83.

22.

Fornell

Larcker

(1981). Journal of Marketing Research 1: 39–50.

23.

Fousiani

Sypes

Armenta

(2023) Applying for remote jobs? you'd better be competent! teleworking turns recruiters attention to candidate competence over warmth-related skills. Personality and Individual Differences 204: 112063.

24.

France

Merrilees

Miller

(2016) An integrated model of customer-brand engagement: drivers and consequences. Journal of Brand Management 23: 119–136.

25.

Gao

Mattila

(2014) Improving consumer satisfaction in green hotels: the roles of perceived warmth, perceived competence, and CSR motive. International Journal of Hospitality Management 42: 20–31.

26.

García-Rodríguez

Armas-Cruz

(2007) Relation between social-environmental responsibility and performance in hotel firms. International Journal of Hospitality Management 26(3): 824–839.

27.

Hair

William

Babin

, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall.

28.

Hamdy

Zhang

Eid

(2024) Does destination gender matter for destination brand attachment and brand love? The moderating role of destination involvement. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 42(1): 120–148.

29.

Harrigan

Evers

Miles

, et al. (2017) Customer engagement with tourism social media brands. Tourism Management 59: 597–609.

30.

Hoeffler

Keller

(2002) Building brand equity through corporate societal marketing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 21(1): 78–89.

31.

Hollebeek

Glynn

Brodie

(2014) Consumer brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, scale development and validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 28(2): 149–165.

32.

Ivens

Leischnig

Muller

, et al. (2015) On the role of brand stereotype in shaping consumer response toward brands: an empirical examination of direct and mediating effects of warmth and competence. Psychology and Marketing 32(8): 808–820.

33.

Japutra

Molinillo

Ekinci

(2021) Do stereotype matter for brand attachment? Marketing Intelligence & Planning 39(4): 501–515.

34.

Johnson

Grayson

(2005) Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. Journal of Business Research 58(4): 500–507.

35.

Kenny

Judd

(1984) Estimating the nonlinear and interactive effects of latent variables. Psychological bulletin 96(1): 201.

36.

Kervyn

Fiske

Malone

(2012) Brands as intentional agents’ framework: how perceived intentions and ability can map brand perception. Journal of Consumer Psychology: The Official Journal of the Society for Consumer Psychology 22(2): 166–176.

37.

Kervyn

Fiske

Malone

(2022) Social perception of brands: warmth and competence define images of both brands and social groups. Consumer Psychology Review 5(1): 51–68.

38.

Kim

Stanton

(2021) Overcoming constraints of the model minority stereotype to advance Asian American health. American Psychologist 76(4): 611–626.

39.

Kolbl

Arslanagic-Kalajdzic

Diamantopoulos

(2019) Stereotyping global brands: is warmth more important than competence? Journal of Business Research 104: 614–621.

40.

Kolbl

Diamantopoulos

Arslanagic-Kalajdzic

, et al. (2020) Do brand warmth and brand competence add value to consumers? A stereotyping perspective. Journal of Business Research 118: 346–362.

41.

Kull

Romero

Monahan

(2021) How May I help you? Driving brand engagement through the warmth of an initial chatbot message. Journal of Business Research 135: 840–850.

42.

Kumar

Kaushik

(2020) Does experience affect engagement? Role of destination brand engagement in developing brand advocacy and revisit intentions. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 37(3): 332–346.

43.

Kumar

Kaushik

(2022) Engaging customers through brand authenticity perceptions: the moderating role of self-congruence. Journal of Business Research 138: 26–37.

44.

Kumar

Kaushal

Shashi (2023) Role of customer perceived brand ethicality in inducing engagement in online brand communities. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 71: 103184.

45.

LeBlanc

Nguyen

(1996) An examination of the factors that signal hotel image to travellers. Journal of Vacation Marketing 3(1): 32–42.

46.

Lee

Olya

Ahmad

, et al. (2021) Sustainable intelligence, destination social responsibility, and pro-environmental behaviour of visitors: evidence from an eco-tourism site. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 47: 365–376.

47.

Lee

Park

Kim

, et al. (2021) A moderator of destination social responsibility for tourists’ pro-environmental behaviors in the VIP model. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 20: 100610.

48.

Cui

Chee

(2023) Investigating tourism experiences and attention allocation of outbound tourists through the lens of the two-factor theory: a grounded theory analysis of Chinese tourists' travelogues in Malaysia. Heliyon 9(7): e17896.

49.

Liu

Wong

Shi

, et al. (2014) The impact of corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance and perceived brand quality on customer-based brand preference. Journal of Services Marketing 28: 181–194.

50.

Loureiro

SMC

Kastenholz

(2011) Corporate reputation, satisfaction, delight, and loyalty towards rural lodging units in Portugal. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30(3): 575–583.

51.

McCool

Lime

(2001) Tourism carrying capacity: tempting fantasy or useful reality? Journal of Sustainable Tourism 9(5): 372–388.

52.

Ministry of Tourism, Government of India (2025) India tourism data compendium 2024. Retrieved from Ministry of Tourism website. https://tourism.gov.in/sites/default/files/2025-03/India/Tourism/Data/Compendium/202024_0.pdf

53.

Nguyen

(2025) Corporate social responsibility disclosure and firm value: a signaling theory perspective. Journal of Economics and Development 27(2): 114–128.

54.

Nunkoo

(2016) Toward a more comprehensive use of social exchange theory to study residents’ attitudes to tourism. Procedia Economics and Finance 39: 588–596.

55.

Nunkoo

Smith

Ramkissoon

(2013) Residents’ attitudes to tourism: a longitudinal study of 140 articles from 1984 to 2010. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 21(1): 5–25.

56.

Osei-Frimpong

McLean

Famiyeh

(2020) Social media brand engagement practices: examining the role of consumer brand knowledge, social pressure, social relatedness, and brand trust. Information Technology & People 33(4): 1235–1254.

57.

Parsa

Singh

Narapareddy

(2020) Swachh bharath (Clean India) campaign and the Indian tourism industry: strategic challenges and cultural impediments. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Cases 8(1): 16–25.

58.

Rather

Parrey

Gulzar

, et al. (2023) Does gamification effect customer brand engagement and co-creation during pandemic? A moderated-mediation analysis. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science 33(2): 285–311.

59.

Saleh

(2023) Attribution theory revisited: probing the link among locus of causality theory, destination social responsibility, tourism experience types, and tourist behavior. Journal of Travel Research 62(6): 1309–1327.

60.

Shen

Geng

(2019) Antecedents of residents’ pro-tourism behavioral intention: place image, place attachment, and attitude. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 2349.

61.

Shen

Lin

, et al. (2019) Application of the stereotype content model to destination image: evidence from residents of mainland China. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 14: 100375.

62.

Shin

Perdue

(2022) Customer non-transactional value co-creation in an online hotel brand community: driving motivation, engagement behavior, and value beneficiary. Journal of Travel Research 61(5): 1088–1104.

63.

KKF

King

Sparks

(2014) Customer engagement with tourism brands: scale development and validation. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 38(3): 304–329.

64.

Huang

(2010) The influencing factors of tourist perceived image and their effects on tourist loyalty. Journal of Business Economics 224(6): 80–88.

65.

Swanson

(2017) The effect of destination social responsibility on tourist environmentally responsible behavior: compared analysis of first-time and repeat tourists. Tourism Management 60: 308–321.

66.

Swanson

Chinchanachokchai

, et al. (2016) Reputation and intentions: the role of satisfaction, identification, and commitment. Journal of Business Research 69(9): 3261–3269.

67.

Wang

Law

, et al. (2017) Influences of destination social responsibility on the relationship quality with residents and destination economic performance. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 34(4): 488–502.

68.

Huang

Pearce

(2018) How does destination social responsibility contribute to environmentally responsible behaviour? A destination resident perspective. Journal of Business Research 86: 179–189.

69.

Huang

(2018) Effects of destination social responsibility and tourism impacts on residents’ support for tourism and perceived quality of life. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 42(7): 1039–1057.

70.

Huang

Hsu

(2018) Unraveling the impact of destination reputation on place attachment and behavior outcomes among Chinese urban tourists. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Insights 1(4): 290–308.

71.

Geoffrey Wall

Yanan Wang

, et al. (2019) Livelihood sustainability in a rural tourism destination - hetu town, Anhui province, China. Tourism Management 71: 272–281.

72.

Wall

Wang

(2019) Integrating tea and tourism: a sustainable livelihoods approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 27(10): 1591–1608.

73.

Gong

Huang

(2020) How do destination social responsibility strategies affect tourists’ intention to visit? An attribution theory perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54: 102023.

74.

Lian

Huang

(2020) How do tourists' attribution of destination social responsibility motives impact trust and intention to visit? The moderating role of destination reputation. Tourism Management 77: 103970.

75.

Swanson

(2020) A scale to measure residents’ perceptions of destination social responsibility. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28(6): 873–897.

76.

Tiwari

Rani

(2024) Trouble in paradise: evaluating the effects of unorganized tourism on the Himalayan ecology. In Borthakur A and Singh P (eds.), The Himalayas in the Anthropocene: 165–183. Switzerland AG: Springer Nature. 165–183.

77.

Tse

Tung

VWS

(2022) Understanding residents’ attitudes towards tourists: Connecting stereotypes, emotions and behaviours. Tourism Management 89: 104435.

78.

Valta

(2013) Do relational norms matter in consumer-brand relationships? Journal of Business Research 66(1): 98–104.

79.

Van Doorn

Lemon

Mittal

, et al. (2010) Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research 13(3): 253–266.

80.

Varghese

(2016) A strategic evaluation on competency of Karnataka destinations through destination management organizations. American Journal of Industrial and Business Management 6(02): 102–108.

81.

Vaughan

Tajfel

Williams

(1981) Bias in reward allocation in an intergroup and an interpersonal context. Social Psychology Quarterly 44: 37–42.

82.

Wang

Ming

Zhang

(2020) Are “people” or “animals” more attractive? Anthropomorphic images in green-product advertising. Journal of Cleaner Production 276: 122719.

83.

Ward

Berno

(2011) Beyond social exchange theory: attitudes toward tourists. Annals of Tourism Research 38(4): 1556–1569.

84.

Wojciszke

Abele

(2008) The primacy of communion over agency and its reversals in evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology 38(7): 1139–1147.

85.

Xie

Lee

(2013) Toward the perspective of cognitive destination image and destination personality: the case of beijing. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 30(6): 538–556.