Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tourism Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tourman

How do tourists' attribution of destination social responsibility motives T

impact trust and intention to visit? The moderating role of destination
reputation
Lujun Sua, Qi Liana, Yinghua Huangb,∗
a
School of Business, Central South University, 932 Lushan South Street, Changsha, Hunan 410083, China
b
Department of Hospitality, Tourism and Event Management, San Jóse State University, San Jóse, CA 95192, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Through the lenses of attribution theory, signal theory, and social exchange theory, this study proposed and
Destination social responsibility tested a conceptual model that investigates how tourists' attribution of destination social responsibility (DSR)
Motive attribution motives impact destination trust and intention to visit a destination. The moderating effects of destination re-
Destination reputation putation (good vs. average) were particularly examined in the proposed model. The results of three experimental
Destination trust
studies revealed that the impact of DSR motive attributions on destination trust and intention to visit vary under
Intention to visit
different conditions of destination reputation. In particular, when a destination has a good reputation, the po-
sitive impact of intrinsic DSR motive attribution tends to be stronger than that of extrinsic DSR motive attri-
bution. However, when a destination's reputation is average, the impact of the two types of DSR motive attri-
butions become insignificant. The findings of this study provide theoretical and practical implications for
destination marketing and DSR campaigns.

1. Introduction responsible entity is difficult to determine in the destination environ-

The tourism development of a destination is heavily dependent on
its natural and cultural resources (Su & Swanson, 2017), and has po-
sitive and negative effects on its environment (Sheldon & Park, 2011;
Su, Huang, & Pearce, 2019). Therefore, bearing the sustainable devel-
opment of tourism destinations in mind, we need to utilize tourism
resources in a responsible manner (Su, Huang, & Huang, 2018b; Su &
Swanson, 2017). Sheldon and Park (2011) also emphasized that socially
responsible practices are essential in the tourism industry. In the lit-
erature on marketing and organizational behavior research, some stu-
dies have found that corporate social responsibility (CSR) in a variety of
tourism-related industries can trigger positive attitudes and behaviors
of consumers, including hotels (Gao & Mattila, 2014; Inoue & Lee,
2011), restaurants (Siu, Zhang, & Kwan, 2014), and airlines (Park,
2019). However, a great number of previous studies concentrated on
the CSR practices of individual companies; because of this, the research
on social responsibility is very limited from the perspective of an entire
destination (Su, Huang, & Hsu, 2018a, b, Su, Huang, & Pearce, 2018). In
fact, tourism destination development is largely an outcome of the
collective activities of all stakeholders, including governments, local
residents, tourism companies, and so on. Although the identity of the
ment, it is possible to conceptualize and assess the overall level and
status of the stakeholders' responsibility behaviors (Su et al., 2018a, b,
c). Moreover, the concept of a tourism destination is “a whole con-
struct” (Um & Crompton, 1990, pp. 432–433), so that tourists' per-
ceptions of the destination's overall image influence their intentions to
visit the destination (Papadimitriou, Kaplanidou, & Apostolopoulou,
2015). Thus, we believe that it is important to examine social respon-
sibility from the destination perspective (Su et al., 2018a, b, c).
Destination social responsibility (DSR) activities not only are a
source of innovation and competitive advantage for individual tourism
companies (Sheldon & Park, 2011), but also protect and improve the
society and environmental interests of an entire destination (Su &
Swanson, 2017). Some scholars have further discovered that the way
tourists perceive the social responsibility activities of a destination di-
rectly affects the tourists' attitudes toward and evaluations of that
destination (Su et al., 2018a, b, c; Su & Swanson, 2017). Su and
Swanson (2017) found that DSR can induce tourists' positive emotions
and destination identification, and in turn, strengthen the tourists' en-
vironmentally responsible behavior. However, with the increasing
public awareness of corporate social responsibility, customers are more
likely to care about why a company does something than about what it

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sulujunslj@163.com (L. Su), 1509693415@qq.com (Q. Lian), yinghua.huang@sjsu.edu (Y. Huang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.103970
Received 27 June 2019; Accepted 20 August 2019
Available online 24 October 2019
0261-5177/ Published by Elsevier Ltd.
L. Su, et al.
has already done (Gilbert & Malone, 1995; Kelley, 1973). In the field of
marketing, some studies have shown that different social responsibility
motives lead to diverse consumer attitudes and behaviors (Du,
Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2007; Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006; Groza,
Pronschinske, & Walker, 2011; Karaosmanoglu, Altinigne, & Isiksal,
2016; Pai, Lai, Chiu, & Yang, 2015; Story & Neves, 2015; Vlachos,
Panagopoulos, Bachrach, & Morgeson, 2017; Yoon, Gürhan-Canli, &
Schwarz, 2006). Vlachos, Epitropaki, Panagopoulos, and Rapp (2013a)
proposed that CSR motive attribution is a key mechanism to explain the
connection between CSR exposure and stakeholder outcomes. As far as
we know, in the tourism literature, no study has subdivided and com-
pared DSR motives from the perspective of tourists, and then on this
basis discussed the tourists' responses to the different DSR motives. This
is the problem addressed in this study.
Previous research has shown that consumer trust has significant
positive impact on consumer identification and purchase intention (Keh
& Xie, 2009). Trust is also a key antecedent of tourists' travel intentions
to a destination (Mohammed Abubakar, 2016). Especially, the char-
acteristics of off-site and temporary nature of tourism activities may
potentially increase tourists' perception of risk at that destination. As a
result, fostering trust in the tourism setting has become increasingly
important, and trust has been found to have significant impact on
tourists' intentions to visit a destination (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006;
Mohammed Abubakar, 2016; Roodurmun & Juwaheer, 2010). Ad-
ditionally, Vlachos et al. (2010) found that trust mediates the re-
lationships among sales force attributions, loyalty, and positive word-
of-mouth. Despite the fact that these empirical studies provide support
for the positive impact of trust, little tourism literature has explored
how tourists develop their trust towards a tourism destination (Artigas,
Yrigoyen, Moraga, & Villalón, 2017, p. 327). Furthermore, there is no
research exploring the mediating role of tourists' trust between DSR
motive attribution and tourists' intentions to visit a tourism destination.
In addition, previous studies have shown that tourists' attitudes and
behavior are also affected by the destination's reputation (Christou,
2007; Loureiro & Kastenholz, 2011). A favorable reputation has a po-
sitive impact on a destination's image (Leblanc & Nguyen, 1995; Yoon,
Guffey, & Kijewski, 1993); and consumers' trust in a destination
(Johnson & Grayson, 2005). Similarly, Loureiro and Kastenholz (2011)
indicated that reputation has a positive effect on reducing perception of
risk and personal insecurity, which heightens the possibility that tour-
ists will choose that destination (Petrick, 2011). More importantly, it
has been found that previous corporate reputation has different influ-
ences on the public's perception of corporate philanthropy and their
attitude toward the company. When a company with a good reputation
carries out social responsibility activities, the public tends to think that
these activities are driven by intrinsic motives, which thus generates a
strong sense of trust, and ultimately results in positive public attitudes
toward the company. Conversely, if the company has a bad reputation,
the public will interpret the company's charitable donation as a self-
interested activity, which will generate a high degree of suspicion and
eventually generate negative attitudes toward the company (Bae &
Cameron, 2006). However, to our best knowledge, the existing litera-
ture has not explored the interaction effects of DSR motive attribution
and destination reputation on trust and visit intention towards a des-
tination.
To fill in this knowledge gap, this study proposed and tested a
conceptual model that investigates how tourists' attribution of DSR
motives (extrinsic vs. intrinsic) impact destination trust and intention to
visit a destination. Specifically, the moderating effects of destination
reputation (good vs. average) were examined in the proposed model.
This study attempted to contribute to the body of knowledge in the
following three aspects. First, this study categorized DSR motive attri-
bution into extrinsic motives and intrinsic motives, then explored the
differences in tourists' destination trust and intentions to visit under the
conditions of different DSR motive attributions. Second, based on the
social exchange theory, this study analyzed the mediating role of
2
Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970
destination trust between DSR motive attribution and tourists' inten-
tions to visit a destination. Third, this study discussed the interactive
effects of DSR motive attribution and destination reputation on desti-
nation trust and tourists' intentions to visit a destination, which will
help us have a well-rounded understanding of the impact of DSR motive
attribution under different conditions of tourism reputation.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. DSR motive attribution
As some destinations have experienced negative impacts of tourism
development, such as environmental degradation, waste generation,
and depletion of natural resources, it has become clear that it is ne-
cessary for all stakeholders in a destination to collectively fulfill their
social responsibilities to achieve sustainable tourism development
(Sheldon & Park, 2011). DSR is defined as “perceptions of obligations
and activities that are applied to all stakeholders, including tourists,
community residents, employees, investors, governments, suppliers,
and competitors” (Su, Wang, Law, Chen, & Fong, 2017, p. 490). In re-
cent years, more and more tourism destinations have begun actively
promoting social responsibility activities, such as local community in-
volvement in tourism, sustainable environmental management, and
public relations (Inoue & Lee, 2011). Such DSR activities have been
proven to increase destination competitiveness, as well as promote the
sustainability of a tourism destination (Sheldon & Park, 2011). Su et al.
(2018a,b,c) also studied the relationship between DSR and destination
residents and further found that DSR directly enhances local residents'
support for tourism development and their quality of life. Nevertheless,
there is currently no guidance on how DSR activities affect tourists'
attitudes and behaviors, and what are the underlying psychological
mechanisms that drive tourists to respond differently to DSR activities.
The motives behind CSR have long been considered to be a major
variable in explaining consumers' response to CSR activities (Godfrey,
2005). Similarly, there may be different motives for fulfilling social
responsibilities in a tourism destination, which in turn affect tourists'
different responses. In the management and marketing literature, CSR
motives have been categorized into various types. Karaosmanoglu et al.
(2016), for example, classified CSR actions as public-serving or firm-
serving. Some studies have differentiated between intrinsic and ex-
trinsic motives (Du et al., 2007; Pai et al., 2015; Story & Neves, 2015;
Vlachos, Panagopoulos, & Rapp, 2013b). In order to further improve
the understanding of the specific attribution of the motives behind CSR
and the differences of consumer responses to different motivations,
some researchers have further subdivided motives into different di-
mensions. For example, Ellen et al. (2006) reported that consumers
differentiate between four types of CSR motives—egoistic-driven, sta-
keholder-driven, strategic-driven, and values-driven—and consumers
are the most responsive to what they believe to be value-driven and
strategic-driven CSR efforts, while most respond negatively to efforts
they consider stakeholder-driven or egoistic-driven.
To be more specific, egoistic-driven motives refer to self-centered
goals (e.g., tax write-offs for charitable donations), while strategic-
driven motives are relevant to the realization of market development
goals (e.g., retaining customers). Stakeholder-driven motives relate to
goals to meet stakeholders' expectations, and value-driven motives re-
flect the kindness and genuine beliefs of the company. Usually, value-
driven motives are considered as intrinsic driving factors, whereas
strategic-, egoistic-, and stakeholder-driven motives are viewed as ex-
trinsic factors (Vlachos, Panagopoulos, et al., 2013b). It should be
clearly pointed out here that there is almost no research exploring these
motives from the perspective of tourists. Additionally, stakeholders
tend to assess and judge the motives of an organization to participate in
CSR, which determines their attitudes and behavior toward the orga-
nization (Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006).
To shed light on the role of DSR motives in influencing attitudes and
L. Su, et al.
behaviors of tourists, this study uses on the classification method of Du
et al. (2007), and divides DSR motives into two categories: extrinsic and
intrinsic motives. In line with Vlachos et al. (2013b), intrinsic DSR
motives refers to the goals of fulfilling one's obligations to society or
doing good for others (Batson, 1998), which echoes the concept of al-
truism to promote societal well-being (Windsor, 2006). On the con-
trary, extrinsic DSR motives refers to the intention to achieve other
specific purposes beyond the concept of altruism. For example, a
tourism destination may propose a strategic investment with an ex-
trinsic motive to promote its own reputation and attract more tourists
(Windsor, 2006).
2.2. Destination trust
According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), trust will arise when one
party has “confidence in an exchange partner's reliability and integrity”
(pp. 23). Pavlou and Fygenson (2006) conceptualized the concept of
trust as “the degree to which consumers believe that a company acts
favorably, ethically, legally, and responsibly” (pp. 123). Trust has be-
come one of the key concepts in the tourism and hospitality industry
research (Artigas et al., 2017; Bordonova & Polo, 2004; Flavián,
Guinalíu, & Gurrea, 2005; Wang, Law, Hung, & Guillet, 2014). More
specifically, Marinao, Torres, and Chasco (2012) defined destination
trust as a multidimensional construct depending on tourists' perception
of “the local inhabitants and institutions' degree of honesty, bene-
volence and competence” (pp. 30).
Existing literature confirms that destination trust influences in-
dividual behavior, such as tourist loyalty (Chen & Phou, 2013; Loureiro
& Kastenholz, 2011; Loureiro & González, 2008), travel intention
(Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Mohammed Abubakar, 2016; Roodurmun &
Juwaheer, 2010), the tourist's attachment to a specific destination
(Chen & Phou, 2013; Thomson, McInnis, & Park, 2005), and repeat
visits (Kim & Oh, 2002). Castaldo, Perrini, Misani, and Tencati (2009)
studied the relationship between companies and consumers and found
that the implementation of social responsibility activities helps to cul-
tivate consumer trust in the company and its products. Previous studies
have shown that destination reputation may have an impact on trust
towards a tourist destination (Artigas et al., 2017; Johnson & Grayson,
2005). Based on this line of research, we define destination trust as the
tourists' overall perception of the destination's competence (e.g., service
quality), benevolence (e.g., positive intentions, that is, willingness to
consider the interests and expectations of the stakeholders), and cred-
ibility (e.g., fulfills its promises).
2.3. Intention to visit a destination
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) defined behavioral intention as an in-
dividual's attitude response tendency to objects; that is, the probability
for an individual to determine an action or decision. Similarly, Sheeran
(2002) pointed out that behavioral intentions have been used to predict
a variety of consumption behaviors. In the tourism setting, the stronger
one's intention to visit a destination, the more likely one is to visit the
place (Lu, Hung, Wang, Schuett, & Hu, 2016). Therefore, it is critical to
investigate visit intention and understand its impact on tourists' beha-
vior (Lu et al., 2016; Su & Huang, 2019). In this study, intention to visit
is defined as the subjective intention and tendency for potential tourists
to visit a certain destination, stimulated by internal and external in-
formation such as destination and social media.
2.4. Destination reputation
Reputation can be defined as the relationship between the organi-
zation and stakeholders within and outside the company: “Corporate
reputation is a collective representation …. It accumulates the relative
position of the company internally with employees and externally with
stakeholders” (Fombrun & Riel, 1997, p. 10). Moreover, reputation is
3
Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970
one of the outcomes of a company's actions in the past, and it represents
customers' collective evaluation of the company's actual performance
and actions (Yoon et al., 1993). However, in the tourism domain, ear-
lier published research has focused on the concept of the image of the
tourist destination but rarely paid attention to the destination's re-
putation (Su et al., 2018a). Christou (2003) asserted that destination
reputation is a synthesis of opinions, knowledge, and attitudes towards
the tourist destination from all stakeholders (e.g., the tourists, the hosts,
and the local community). According to the signal theory, a good des-
tination reputation provides a signal that the destination has high-
quality products and services, which can reduce the risk perception of
tourists and strengthen the sense of trust in the tourist destination, thus
enhancing the tourists' travel intentions. Drawing on the aforemen-
tioned literature, this study, at the tourism destination stakeholders'
level, directly defines destination reputation as the trust and goodwill of
the destination stakeholders in response to past and current travel
performances and outcomes. Compared with the destination's compe-
titors, the destination's reputation includes the characteristics of dur-
ability and subjectivity, which focuses more on the perceptions of the
destinations by external stakeholders in terms of emotion.
3. Theoretical framework and hypotheses development
3.1. The relationship between DSR motive attribution and destination trust
According to attribution theory (Kelley & Michela, 1980), when CSR
activities are believed to be intrinsic, or value-driven, consumers and
employees are more likely to generate higher recommendation inten-
tions (Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos, & Avramidis, 2009), brand
advocacy (Pai et al., 2015), and job satisfaction (Vlachos et al., 2013b).
This is because individuals believe that the CSR actions are driven by
sincerity and unconditional kindness toward the whole society, rather
than any self-centered purposes. On the contrary, consumers and em-
ployees respond negatively when they perceive that CSR behavior is
performed to meet the company's own needs, such as pursuing profits or
improving corporate image.
Trust is one type of consumer response to the motives driving CSR
behavior (Bagozzi, 1992; Park, Lee, & Kim, 2014; Vlachos et al., 2009).
Consistent with the aforementioned arguments, Vlachos et al. (2009)
reported that stakeholder-, strategic-, and egoistic-driven motives have
a negative effect on consumer trust in the context of the mobile phone
industry, while values-driven attributions positively influence con-
sumer trust. In the context of tourism destinations, due to the si-
multaneous nature of the production and consumption of tourism
products, destination marketers must ensure delivery of the services
promised during advertisement and promotion. The integrity and
transparency of the services provided by a tourist destination lead to
the trust of tourists to these destinations (Abubakar, Ilkan, Al-Tal, &
Eluwole, 2017). Based on the social exchange theory, when a DSR ac-
tivity is driven by an intrinsic desire to benefit the whole society,
tourists tend to support the fulfillment of the destination's own interests
as a reciprocal exchange. The perceived intrinsic DSR motives enhance
the psychological safety that helps tourists develop a sense of trust in
the destination. Contrary to intrinsic DSR motives, extrinsic DSR mo-
tives are perceived as doing DSR activities for a self-centered goal (e.g.,
improving reputation, retaining customers, etc.), rather than satisfying
the interests of tourists. Tourists may believe that the destination action
is a marketing strategy and undependable, and this reduces their trust
in the destination. On the basis of the above conclusions, we propose
the research hypothesis as follow:
H1. When DSR activities are attributed to intrinsic (vs. extrinsic)
motives, tourists tend to generate a higher level of trust towards the
tourism destination.
L. Su, et al.
3.2. The relationship between DSR motive attribution and intention to visit
Previous studies have shown that certain CSR motive attributions
directly impact consumers' attitudes and behavioral intentions (Groza
et al., 2011; Walker, Heere, Parent, & Drane, 2010) and repeat pa-
tronage (Vlachos et al., 2009), as well as employees' in-role and extra-
role performances (Story & Neves, 2015). Research has also reported
that value-driven and strategic-driven CSR motives improve consumers'
purchase intentions, while stakeholder-driven and egoistic-driven CSR
motives reduce consumers' purchase intentions (Ellen et al., 2006). Pai
et al. (2015) also argued that when industrial buyers perceive their
suppliers' CSR motives as more intrinsic- (vs. extrinsic-) driven, there is
a stronger positive correlation between their CSR perceptions and
brand publicity and brand equity. For example, consumers may make
judgments about a hotel's CSR motives, and then produce different
behavioral responses to the hotel's “green” practices (Su & Swanson,
2019). Compared with their reactions to extrinsic motives, when con-
sumers perceive that hotels adopt green responsibility behavior for
intrinsic motives, they will be more satisfied and their repurchase
tendency will be enhanced regardless of the service results (Gao &
Mattila, 2014). In the restaurant industry, Bolton and Mattila (2015)
got similar research conclusions; in other words, customers' satisfaction
and loyalty intentions are improved when the CSR motive is society-
serving (i.e., intrinsic) and consistent with public norms about care and
concern for others. Kang, Stein, Heo, and Lee (2012) also found that
when tourists perceive that a hotel's green initiatives are intrinsically
motivated (i.e., environmental protection and sustainable develop-
ment), they show greater willingness to pay a premium for the hotel's
green responsibility initiatives.
Drawing upon attribution theory (Kelley & Michela, 1980), when
consumers are motivated by a company's genuine efforts to engage with
social causes, they are more likely to express a response that benefits
the company (Ahearne, Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005). Therefore,
compared with the extrinsic motives of DSR, the intrinsic motives are
more in line with the values and interests of tourists, which will posi-
tively affect their attitudes and behavior toward the destination, re-
sulting in greater intention to visit. This is because they believe that this
kind of motive indicates the DSR activities are driven by real sincerity
and goodwill on the part of the destination management organizations
(DMOs). In contrast, when tourists perceive that social responsibility
activities in a tourism destination are based on extrinsic motives for the
sake of the DMOs' own interests, they will respond negatively. Based on
the previous studies, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
H2. When the DSR activities are attributed to intrinsic (vs. extrinsic)
motives, tourists tend to show stronger intentions to visit the
destination.
3.3. The relationship between destination trust and intention to visit
Trust can effectively minimize customers' perception of uncertainty
and risk (Han & Hyun, 2013; Pavlou, Liang, & Xue, 2007). Due to the
intangibility and inseparability of the characteristics of service, a high
degree of trust in the products and/or suppliers is a necessary condition
to encourage purchase (Loureiro & González, 2008). Lin and Lu (2010)
suggested that trust can significantly influence purchase intention
under the condition of positive customer word-of-mouth (WOM). Si-
milarly, the tourism literature also has shown that tourists tend to
choose destinations that they feel are dependable and trustworthy
(Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Han & Hyun, 2015; Roodurmun & Juwaheer,
2010).
The existing tourism literature has indicated the relevance of des-
tination trust and tourist behavior (Chen & Phou, 2013; Ekinci &
Hosany, 2006; Kim & Oh, 2002; Loureiro & Kastenholz, 2011; Loureiro
& González, 2008; Mohammed Abubakar, 2016; Roodurmun &
Juwaheer, 2010; Thomson et al., 2005). Abubakar and Ilkan (2016), for
4
Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970
instance, confirmed that destination trust positively influences inten-
tion to visit. Generally speaking, enhancing the trust of tourists in
destination information can eliminate tourists' concerns, thereby re-
ducing their risk perception and inspiring them to generate strong in-
tentions to visit. On the contrary, if tourists perceive that the services or
products of the destination are not credible, their visit intentions may
be reduced. Therefore, based on the extant literature, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H3. Destination trust will significantly impact tourists' intentions to
visit a destination.
3.4. Destination trust as a mediator
Consistent with the social exchange theory, in a relationship be-
tween two parties, when one party perceives its exchange partner has
integrity and reliability, and the partner's behavior is acceptable and in
line with one's own expectations, then trust is generated (Blau, 1964). A
number of existing studies have confirmed the importance of trust
(Chiou & Drog, 2006; Eisingerich & Bell, 2008) and further examined its
role as a mediator in the service and marketing industry (Keh & Xie,
2009; Loureiro & González, 2008; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Tourigny,
Han, Baba, & Pan, 2019). Bagozzi (1992) introduced trust as a mediator
to explain how CSR-induced attributions contribute to customers' be-
havioral outcomes. Vlacho et al. (2009) in one study demonstrated that
trust fully mediates the relationship between attributions of stake-
holder-/egoistic-driven motives and recommendation intention, while
there is a partial mediation link between value-driven attributions and
recommendation intention. In the sales force context, Vlacho et al.
(2010) also examined and confirmed the mediating role of organiza-
tional trust between attributions of an organization's CSR motives and
its employees' WOM) and loyalty intentions. Further, Park et al. (2014)
confirmed that customers' trust towards a company partially or fully
mediates the effect of CSR initiatives on corporate reputation.
When consumers trust a company, they tend to believe that the
company has a greater sense of its social and ethical responsibilities. As
a result, customers may have more confidence in the quality of the
company's products or services (Gefen, Straub, & Boudreau, 2000),
which in turn leads consumers to repurchase the company's service or
products from the company. In the setting of tourism, tourism con-
sumption, more specifically, has the characteristics of intangibility and
variability, which leads to higher risks of tourism consumption. If
tourists attribute the motives of a destination's DSR initiative to bene-
volence and genuineness, they are more likely to develop a sense of
trust towards this destination. Then, they are more likely to generate
positive attitudes and favorable behaviors towards it. From the per-
spective of tourism residents, Su et al. (2017) supported the above
conclusion and found that local residents highly value the DSR activ-
ities implemented in their own communities, which in turn strengthens
the residents' trust in the destination management organization, as well
as enhances their place identification and benefits the destination de-
velopment. Thus, we reasonably predict the mediating effect of trust in
DSR motive attributions and tourists' intentions to visit, and develop the
following hypotheses:
H4. The relationship between DSR motive attribution and intention to
visit is mediated by destination trust.
3.5. Destination reputation as a moderator
Studies have demonstrated that socially responsible activities are
essential in establishing and maintaining a favorable reputation (Keh &
Xie, 2009). The reputation of a company has direct impact on con-
sumers' affective attitudes (Marin, Ruiz, & Rubio, 2009) and percep-
tions of corporate benefits (Lichtenstein, Drumwright, & Braig, 2004).
Notably, the public tend to adopt a reputation as an ethical benchmark
L. Su, et al.
when evaluating a company's CSR program (Kim, 2014). Pettigrew
(1979) showed how reputation affects consumer judgment of the
company's CSR activities. More precisely, the CSR activities of a com-
pany with a good reputation are more likely to be attributed to intrinsic
motives that are trustworthy and sincere. However, when a company
with a bad reputation is involved in CSR activities, customers are more
likely to attribute its motives to extrinsic intentions such as improving
its reputation. In this case, a bad reputation may increase customers'
suspicions of the company's CSR motives. Customers consider the
company's social responsibility activities as a marketing ploy to im-
prove its image, rather than a sincere action for societal well-being. As a
result, CSR activities by a company with a bad reputation may even
decrease consumers' sense of trust towards the company (Elkins, 1976).
Consistent with the above views, a destination with a good re-
putation is considered to be more reliable and credible than one with a
poor reputation (Chen & Dubinsky, 2003). Johnson and Grayson (2005)
also indicated that destination reputation directly impacts tourists' trust
towards a destination. Therefore, in this study, destination reputation is
proposed as a moderator between DSR motive attribution and desti-
nation trust. That is, when a good tourist destination adopts social re-
sponsibility behavior because of intrinsic motives, tourists' trust in the
destination will be higher than their trust in a destination with extrinsic
motives. While for a tourist destination with an average reputation,
whether the perceived social responsibility is extrinsic or intrinsic,
tourists' trust in the destination will not be significantly different. We
propose the following hypotheses:
H5a. When a destination has a good reputation, intrinsic (vs. extrinsic)
DSR motive attribution has a stronger positive impact on destination
trust.
H5b. When a destination has an average reputation, DSR motive
attribution doesn't have a significant impact on destination trust.
Previous studies have found that reputation influences consumers'
responses to CSR activities (Yoon et al., 2006). Recently, Li, Liu, and
Huan (2019) revealed that brand reputation moderates the relationship
between a customer's perceptions of CSR strategy and customer-com-
pany identification. Similarly, in the marketing literature, Lii and Lee
(2012) suggested that consumers may be skeptical towards a company
with a poor reputation and question why the company is doing some-
thing in its socially responsible campaigns. By contrast, consumers who
evaluate a firm's reputation as high will have a more positive evaluation
of its brand, regardless of what the firm has chosen as its socially re-
sponsible initiatives (Lii & Lee, 2012). Thus, we predict that the desti-
nation's reputation also moderates the main effect of DSR motive at-
tribution on tourists' intentions to visit the destination. Particularly,
when destination reputation is good, tourists are more likely to attri-
bute DSR activities to intrinsic motives, which in turn fosters intention
to visit a destination. This occurs because consumers tend to regard
intrinsic motives as genuine good intentions for the well-being of the
whole society (Hillenbrand, Money, & Pavelin, 2012). Conversely,
when a destination has an average reputation, regardless of DSR motive
attributions, tourists may suspect that its DSR initiatives are publicity
tools for profit generation. Then there is no significant difference in
tourists' intentions to visit the destination. Hence, we put forward the
following hypotheses:
H6a. When a destination has a good reputation, intrinsic (vs. extrinsic)
DSR motive attribution has a stronger positive impact on tourists'
intentions to visit the destination.
H6b. When a destination has an average reputation, DSR motive
attribution does not have a significant impact on tourists' intentions
to visit the destination.
Moreover, previous studies have indicated that consumers use their
existing knowledge about a company to process new information as
they perceive and determine the motives behind the company's CSR
5
Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970
activities (Bae & Cameron, 2006). The reputation acts as a frame of
reference for judging corporate behavior (Elving, 2013). Therefore, a
customer's attribution of CSR motives is affected by their existing
cognition of the company. Based on cognitive consistency theory
(Heider, 1946), when information is consistent with a person's pre-
existing attitudes and beliefs, it is more readily accepted and integrated
into one's body of knowledge. So, when intrinsic DSR motive attribution
is in line with a good destination reputation, tourists tend to generate a
higher level of trust, and in turn, which enhances their intentions to
visit the tourism destination. However, when a destination has an
average reputation, tourists remain suspicious of the ultimate purpose
of fulfilling social responsibility in tourism, which leads to their cog-
nitive inconsistency, and has no effect on their trust and intentions to
visit. Hence, we further propose that the interaction between DSR
motive attribution and destination reputation has an effect on tourists'
intentions to visit through destination trust. Accordingly, we propose
that:
H7. When the tourist destination's reputation is good, DSR motive
attribution will prompt tourists to have more trust in the destination,
and enhance their intentions to visit. However, when the destination's
reputation is average, this effect will not be significant.
Based on the above seven hypotheses, this study proposes a con-
ceptual model, as shown in Fig. 1, which consists of the key concepts
mentioned above.
Next, we conducted three studies to verify all of the hypotheses. In
Study 1, the first experiment used undergraduate students to analyze
the main effect of DSR motive attribution (intrinsic motives vs. extrinsic
motives) on destination trust and intention to visit (H1 and H2), and
further to confirm the positive influence of destination trust on inten-
tion to visit (H3). Additionally, it tested the mediating effect of desti-
nation trust on the relationship between DSR motive attribution and
intention to visit (H4). In Study 2, the experiment tested the moderating
role of destination reputation on the main effect of DSR motive attri-
bution and tourists' responses (i.e., destination trust, intention to visit)
through undergraduate and graduate students, namely, testing Hy-
potheses H5a, H5b and H6a, H6b. Next, Study 3 replicated Study 2 with
a new sample of real tourists to enhance the external validity and
generalizability of the research findings. It also examined the interac-
tion effects of DSR motive attribution and destination reputation on the
tourists' responses (H7) and verified the moderated mediation model.
4. Study 1
4.1. Pretest
4.1.1. Participants and procedure
Before the formal investigation, we first conducted a preliminary
investigation aimed to assess whether the participants could correctly
attribute the DSR motives as manipulated in the experiment conditions
of our formal investigation. We developed two versions of the DSR
motive description (extrinsic vs. intrinsic; see Appendix 1).
Fig. 1. The Conceptual model.
L. Su, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970

Additionally, we provided a brief description of the purpose of this

study so that they could have a clear understanding of the experiment.
The 44 participants (Mage = 23.8, 27.3% male) were randomly di-
vided into two groups (extrinsic vs. intrinsic motives). All 44 partici-
pants were a convenience sample from a Chinese university. In order to
avoid prejudice against existing destination brands and products, the
participants were provided a report of a fictitious tourism destination,
A. Then they scored its DSR motives on a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree) proposed by Ellen et al.
(2006) and Vlachos et al. (2009). High scores on the scale meant that
the participants agreed with the attribution of DSR motives. Three di-
mensions on the scale represented the extrinsic motives—egoistic-,
strategic-, and stakeholder-driven—and one dimension measured the
intrinsic motive—value-driven. Last, participants answered some de-
mographic questions.

4.1.2. Results and discussion

Independent-sample t-tests were conducted to check the manipula-
tion effectiveness. The group exposed to the stimuli of extrinsic motives
reported higher scores in the dimensions of egoistic-driven, strategic-
driven, and stakeholder-driven motives than the group exposed to the
stimuli of intrinsic motives (Mextrinsic motives = 4.95, Mintrinsic mo-
tives = 3.50, t = 7.909, p < 0.01), but lower scores on the value-driven
motive (M = 3.05). On the contrary, the group exposed to the stimuli of
intrinsic motives reported higher scores in the dimension of value-
driven motives than the group exposed to the stimuli of extrinsic mo-
tives (Mextrinsic motives = 3.05, Mintrinsic motives = 5.24, t = −4.658,
p < 0.01). This finding indicated that participants could differentiate
extrinsic and intrinsic motives based on the given stimuli. Therefore,
the stimuli in the pretest were effective and suitable to be used in the
following main study.
4.2. Main experiment
4.2.1. Participants and procedure
Study 1 examined how the respondents reacted to intrinsic (vs.
extrinsic) motives differently and the mediating effect of destination
trust, as well as the positive effect of destination trust on the intention
to visit.
Eighty undergraduates (M age = 19.24, 61.25% male) participated
in this study. After obtaining their consent, the participants were ran-
domly assigned to one of two experimental conditions of DSR motives.
Every participant read a basic written instruction, including the intent
of the study, before starting the questionnaire.
First of all, the participants read this lead-in: “Imagine that you will
choose a tourist destination for a vacation. When choosing a tourist
destination, you happen to see a well-known newspaper report news
about the social responsibility behavior of A tourist destination.” Then
all of the participants read a brief description of the social responsibility
behavior of A tourism destination. After that the participants completed
manipulation checks: “Looking back at the materials you read, do you
think that the social responsibility activities of tourism destination A
are based on intrinsic or extrinsic motives?” (1 = Strongly disagree,
7 = Strongly agree). The score allowed us to assess whether partici-
pants naturally perceived each type of DSR motive. Next, participants
were asked to rate their destination trust and intention to visit.
Destination trust (Selnes & Sallis, 2003) was measured with four items
on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree).
The dependent variable, intention to visit, was measured by a five-item
scale (Kassem, Lee, & Modeste, 2003; Lam & Hsu, 2006). Last, we asked
all respondents to answer some demographic questions.
4.2.2. Manipulation check
The measurement results showed that all participants could cor-
rectly attribute the DSR motives described in the stimuli (M extrinsic
motives = 4.90 vs. M intrinsic motives = 5.13; both are greater than the
Fig. 2. The Influence of DSR motive attribution on destination trust.
median value of 4). Thus, the manipulation of DSR motives was suc-
cessful.
4.2.3. Measurement reliability
All the multi-item scales used to measure the constructs mentioned
had high reliability (destination trust α = 0.897; intention to visit
α = 0.924).
4.2.4. Main effects of DSR motive attribution on destination trust and
intention to visit
A one-way ANOVA was used to test hypotheses H1 and H2. The
results showed that there was a significant difference in destination
trust between the groups exposed to the different DSR motives
(F(1,79) = 17.595, p < 0.01; see Fig. 2). Particularly, in the intrinsic
motives condition, participants really felt the DSR activities were more
trustworthy (M intrinsic motives = 4.78, S.D. = 1.17) than those in the
extrinsic motives condition (M extrinsic motives = 3.76, S.D. = 1.00).
Further, there was a significant difference between the two groups in
the intention to visit (F(1,79) = 22.31, p < 0.01; see Fig. 3). As ex-
pected, we found that participants in the DSR intrinsic motives group
had greater intentions to visit (M intrinsic motives = 4.38, S.D. = 1.13)
than those in the extrinsic motives group (M extrinsic motives = 3.19,
S.D. = 1.13). These results confirmed H1 and H2.
4.2.5. The effect of destination trust on intention to visit
A linear regression analysis was conducted, where destination trust
and intention to visit were treated as the independent variable and
dependent variable, respectively. The results showed that destination
trust had a significant positive impact on the tourists' intentions to visit
(β = 0.592, t = 5.927, p < 0.01), thus providing support for H3.
4.2.6. The mediating effect of destination trust
The mediating role of destination trust was tested through a boot-
strapping model (Hayes, 2013). A 95% confidence interval (CI) of the
parameter estimates was obtained by running the samples 5000 times.
The DSR motive attribution, our independent variable, was coded as
0 = extrinsic motives and 1 = intrinsic motives; destination trust, and
intention to visit were set as mediator variable and dependent variable.
The bootstrapping results indicate that the mediating effect of desti-
nation trust was significant; β = 0.471, not including zero at the 95%
CI, the lower limit CI (LLCI) = 0.072, and the upper limit CI

6
L. Su, et al.
Fig. 3. The Influence of DSR motive attribution on intention to visit.
Fig. 4. Mediating role of destination trust.
(ULCI) = 1.051. In addition, the direct effect of DSR motive attribution
on intention to visit was also significant; β = 0.719, not including zero
at 95% CI, LLCI = 0.219, ULCI = 1.22. Thus, destination trust plays a
part in the mediating role between DSR motive attribution and tourists'
intentions to visit. We thus found support for H3. Fig. 4 provides more
details on the results.
5. Study 2
5.1. Pretest
5.1.1. Pretest of stimuli
In order to test whether the destination reputation could be effec-
tively manipulated, we further tested our stimuli on a different group of
30 undergraduate students (36.7% male and 63.3% female,
Mage = 19.9) by assigning each student to one of the two scenarios
(destination reputation: good vs. average). Specifically, we created a
brief description for each of the scenarios including the destination
reputation index, the overall reputation score, the favorable rate, and
the good recommendation rate. After reading the stimuli, all the par-
ticipants rated the destination reputation named A. The destination
7
Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970
reputation was measured with three items on a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree) from Walsh, Mitchell, and
Jackson (2009).
5.1.2. Results and discussion
The experimental results showed that the Cronbach's α values of the
destination reputation were 0.96, which reflected the good internal
consistency of the three items. Further, an independent-sample t-test
was used to examine the effectiveness of the destination reputation. The
result showed that the evaluation results of the destination reputation
of the two groups had a significant difference (t = 4.786, p < 0.01). In
particular, the group under the condition of good destination reputation
(M = 5.09) had a higher score than the median value 4 (t = 21.81,
p < 0.01), while the group under the condition of average destination
reputation had a lower score (M = 2.93) than the median value 4
(t = 7.616, p < 0.01). Therefore, the results suggested the control of
the destination reputation in the pretest was successful.
5.2. Main experiment
5.2.1. Research design and procedure
Two hundred undergraduate and graduate students participated in
the study (90 males and 110 females). In the study, the procedure was
to random assign participants to one of the four conditions in a 2 (DSR
motive attribution: extrinsic vs. intrinsic motives) × 2 (destination re-
putation: good vs. general) between-subjects design. Before the formal
study began, the participants were introduced to the study rules and
objectives, so that they had a preliminary understanding of the study.
In order to eliminate the influence of the DSR behaviors on the
evaluation of the destination's reputation, this study first asked the
participants to read the written description of the destination's re-
putation (see Appendix 1). Next, the participants read the experiment
conditions of DSR motives used in Study 1.
Afterward, all the participants scored the destination reputation on
a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree). The
manipulation check of the DSR motive attribution followed the same
procedures used in Study 1. The goal of this measure was to re-examine
whether the participants really understand the stimuli. Then, partici-
pants were asked to complete the scales of destination trust and in-
tention to visit, as well as answer some demographic questions. The
procedure was similar to that in Study 1.
5.2.2. Manipulation check
The results show that the participants could correctly attribute the
DSR motives (M extrinsic motives = 5.19; M intrinsic motives = 4.48; both
were significantly higher than the median value of 4), and there were
significant differences in their judgment of destination reputation (M
average = 2.64 vs. M good = 5.38; t = −22.138, p < 0.01). Thus, the
manipulation of DSR motive attribution and destination reputation was
successful.
5.2.3. Measurement reliability
The Cronbach's α value of destination trust and intention to
visit—0.885 and 0.904, respectively—were greater than the critical
value, 0.700, which fully shows that the data in our research have high
reliability.
5.2.4. Moderating effect of destination reputation on destination trust
Using the DSR motive attribution (intrinsic vs. extrinsic motives)
and destination reputation (good vs. average) as between-subjects fac-
tors, the two-way ANOVA showed a significant effect on destination
trust (F(1,196) = 7.775, p < 0.01). The results of the planned contracts
(see Fig. 5) demonstrated that when DSR behavior is motivated by in-
trinsic motives under the situation of a good destination reputation, the
participants will feel more trust in the destination (M intrinsic mo-
tives = 5.13 vs. M extrinsic motives = 4.25, F(1,98) = 23.556, p < 0.01).
L. Su, et al.
Fig. 5. Interactive effect of DSR motive attribution and destination reputation
on destination trust.
Interestingly, on the other hand, no differences were found for the other
circumstance. That is, under the situation of average destination re-
putation, no matter whether the DSR behaviors were motivated by in-
trinsic motives or extrinsic motives, there was no significant difference
in the destination trust (M intrinsic motives = 3.42 vs. M extrinsic mo-
tives = 3.26, F(1,98) = 0.828, p > 0.05). This illustrated that destination
reputation plays a moderating role in the relationship between DSR
motive attribution and destination trust. These data analyses confirmed
H5a and H5b.
5.2.5. Moderating effect of destination reputation on intention to visit
Also as expected, consistent with the previous hypothesis, the re-
sults of the two-way ANOVA showed a significant interaction between
DSR motive attribution and destination reputation on the intention to
visit (F(1,196) = 5.653, P < 0.05). As shown in Fig. 6, an analysis
within each destination reputation indicated that for the “good re-
putation of destination” group, the “intrinsic DSR motives” subgroup
had a significantly higher intention to visit the destination than the
“extrinsic DSR motives” subgroup (M intrinsic motives = 4.56 vs. M extrinsic
Fig. 6. Interactive effect of DSR motive attribution and destination reputation
on intention to visit.
8
Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970
motives = 3.76, F(1,98) = 19.637, p < 0.01). For the “average reputation
of destination” group, the results were different. There was no sig-
nificant difference between intrinsic motives (M intrinsic motives = 2.74)
and extrinsic motives for DSR (M extrinsic motives = 2.55, F(1,98) = 1.143,
p > 0.05). Thence, the results revealed that destination reputation had
a significant moderating effect on the relationship between DSR motive
attribution and intention to visit. H6a and H6b were supported.
6. Study 3
Study 3 replicated Study 2 with a different sample of real tourists
and tested the generalizability of the findings of Study 2. Real tourists
were recruited as experimental subjects to overcome the limitations of
using undergraduate and graduate student participants in Study 2.
Especially, we used bootstrapping to test H7 and confirmed the inter-
action effects between DSR motive attribution and destination reputa-
tion.
6.1. Sample characteristics
This experiment took place in Yuelu Mountain, Changsha, a famous
5A scenic spot in China. Tourists were invited to complete a ques-
tionnaire voluntarily. As shown in Table 1, Study 3 obtained 167 valid
questionnaires. Among the real tourist participants, 61.7% were
women, they were between 25 and 45 years old (65.3%), and their
monthly income was between 5000 and 8000 yuan (32.9%). Their
occupations were relatively diverse, such as being corporate staff
(26.3%), students (21.6%), or civil servants (19.8%). Their education
level was mainly junior college or undergraduate (60.5%) The details
are shown in Table 2.
6.2. Research design and procedure
The stimuli of Study 3 and the experimental procedures were
roughly the same as in Study 2. The participants were asked to read the
experimental stimuli of DSR activities and destination reputation re-
ports first. Then they were required to answer a question: “Read the
above two reports about tourism destination A, I am very familiar with
it.” A 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree) was used
to test the tourists' familiarity with the fictitious tourism destination.
Next, participants filled in their total number of trips in the past year to
test their travel experiences. Given that some endogenous and exo-
genous variables might confound the research results, we controlled the
two variables of tourism destination familiarity and tourism experience.
The measurement scales for other variables were the same as those in
Study 2.
6.3. Results and discussion
6.3.1. Measurement reliability
The Cronbach's α values of destination trust and intention to visit
were 0.916 and 0.922, respectively, both greater than the critical value
of 0.700, indicating that the measurement items of the two scales were
internally consistent and had good reliability.
Table 1
Experimental design conditions and Sample size.
Manipulation Conditions Cell Size
Extrinsic motives 83
Average destination reputation 43
Good destination reputation 40
Intrinsic motives 84
Average destination reputation 42
Good destination reputation 42
L. Su, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970

Table 2
Sample characteristics.
n % n %

Age in years Monthly Income

18 to 24 49 29.3 Less than ¥ 2000 29 17.4
25 to 44 109 65.3 ¥ 2000 to ¥ 2999 9 5.4
45 to 64 9 5.4 ¥ 3000 to ¥ 4999 33 19.8
65 or Older 0 0 ¥ 5000 to ¥ 7999 55 32.9
Occupation ¥ 8000 or More 41 24.6
Corporate staff 44 26.3 Level of Education
Professional worker 9 5.4 Less than High School 3 1.8
Civil servant 33 19.8 High School/Technical School 11 6.6
Retailer 6 3.6 Undergraduate/Associate Degree 101 60.5
Students 36 21.6 Postgraduate Degree 52 31.1
Retiree 1 0.6 Gender
Individual operator 10 6.0 Male 64 38.3
Other 28 16.8 Female 103 61.7

6.3.2. Control variable check

This study added two controlled variables: destination familiarity
and tourism experience. The results showed that the mean value of the
control variable destination familiarity in the four experimental groups
was between 3.12 and 3.56, and the differences between the groups
were not significant (F(1,163) = 0.545, p > 0.05). For the test of
tourism experience, according to the total sample of travel experience
average of 2.66, we divided the subjects into two groups: rich travel
experience (44.3%) and less tourism experience (55.7%). The in-
dependent sample T-test analysis showed that the tourism experiences
of destination trust (M TEM = 4.06 vs. M TEL = 4.27, t = 1.158,
p > 0.05) and intention to visit (M TEM = 3.81 vs. M TEL = 4.04,
t = 1.242, p > 0.05) were not significant. These results indicate that
the impact of DSR motive attribution and destination reputation on the
responses of the tourists were not affected by these factors.
6.3.3. The moderating effect of destination reputation on destination trust
Following the control variables check, a two-way ANOVA was used
to assess the effect of DSR motive attribution and destination reputation
on destination trust. ANOVA results indicated that DSR motive attri-
bution (F(1,163) = 12.835, p < 0.01) and destination reputation
(F(1,163) = 21.798, p < 0.01) had a significant main effect on desti-
nation trust. More importantly, DSR motive attribution and destination
reputation interaction was significant (F(1,163) = 7.165, p < 0.01) in
predicting tourists' trust in the destination. The results of further
planned contract highlighted that in the condition of good destination
reputation, the participants were more willing to express trust in the
destination (M intrinsic motives = 5.05 vs. M extrinsic motives = 4.10,
F(1,80) = 19.240, p < 0.01) because they thought the DSR activities
were driven by intrinsic motives. On the contrary, in the condition of
average destination reputation, there was no significant difference in
destination trust between the two groups exposed to different motive
attributions (M intrinsic motives = 3.94 vs. M extrinsic motives = 3.80,
F(1,83) = 0.418, p > 0.05). As expected, destination reputation played
a moderating role in the relationship between DSR motive attribution
and destination trust (as shown in Fig. 7). H5a, H5b was again tested
and supported.
Fig. 7. Moderating effect of destination reputation between DSR motive attri-
bution and destination trust.
intentions between the two types of DSR motives under the different
conditions of destination reputation. In particular, the tourists tended to
demonstrate higher intentions to visit a destination with a good re-
putation when they perceived intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) DSR motives (M
intrinsic motives = 4.72 vs. M extrinsic motives = 3.76; F(1,80) = 16.796,
p < 0.01). Whereas, regardless of whether the DSR behavior was due
to intrinsic motives or extrinsic motives, there was no impact of DSR
motive on tourists' visit intentions under an average destination re-
putation (M intrinsic motives = 3.71 vs. M extrinsic motives = 3.41;
F(1,83) = 1.706, p > 0.05). Overall, these findings indicated that this
effect of DSR motive attribution on intention to visit was moderated by
destination reputation; specifically, the intention to visit was higher
only for those destinations were reputable (see Fig. 8). H6a, H6b was
again tested and supported.
6.3.5. The mediating role of destination trust
This study hypothesized that the interaction effects between DSR
motive attribution and destination reputation would indirectly affect
intention to visit through destination trust. Different from Study 1,
Study 3 carried out a PROCESS macro model 8 to verify the moderated
mediation of destination trust between DSR motive attribution and
tourists' visit intentions. A 95% CI of the parameter estimates was ob-
tained by running the samples 5000 times. The results showed that the

6.3.4. The moderating effect of destination reputation on intention to visit

We used a similar procedure for assessing the impact of destination
reputation on DSR motive attribution and intention to visit by utilizing
the same approach. Similar to Study 2, DSR motive attribution
(F(1,163) = 14.739, p < 0.01) and destination reputation
(F(1,163) = 17.439, p < 0.01) had significant main effects on tourists'
intentions to visit. Additionally, the analysis revealed a significant in-
teraction between DSR motive attribution and destination reputation in
predicting intention to visit (F(1,163) = 4.037, p < 0.05). Further Fig. 8. Moderating effect of destination reputation between DSR motive attri-
simple effect analysis showed significant differences in the visit bution and intention to visit.

9
L. Su, et al.
interaction had a significant impact on destination trust
(βmotives×reputation = 0.816, SE = 0.305, p < 0.01). Surprisingly, the
effect of destination trust was significant (β = 0.816, SE = 0.064,
p < 0.01). But there were no significant interaction effects when ex-
amining the influence of destination trust on tourists' intentions to visit
(βmotives×reputation = 0.084, SE = 0.254, p > 0.05). This implies that
the interaction of DSR motive attribution and destination reputation
had indirect effects on intention to visit through destination trust
(CI = 0.149 to 1.041). Especially, destination trust mediated the effect
of DSR motive attribution on tourists' intentions to visit only in the
condition of good destination reputation (CI = 0.392 to 1.037) and not
in the average destination reputation condition (CI = −0.202 to
0.423). That is, when the moderator was the average destination re-
putation condition, there was no effect of DSR motive attribution on the
intention to visit via destination trust, while the good condition ap-
peared to have a positive effect. Thus, H7 was confirmed.
7. Conclusion and implications
7.1. Conclusion
Drawing from attribution theory, signal theory, and social exchange
theory, the present study proposed and tested a conceptual model to
investigate how tourists' attribution of DSR motives influence destina-
tion trust and intention to visit a destination. Specifically, Study 1
supported that when tourists attributed DSR activities to intrinsic mo-
tives, rather than extrinsic motives, they tended to develop stronger
destination trust and greater intention to visit the destination.
Furthermore, we demonstrated destination trust to be a partial med-
iator among DSR motive attribution and intention to visit. More im-
portantly, Studies 2 and 3 explored the moderating role of destination
reputation on the relationship between DSR motive attribution and
tourist responses (i.e., destination trust and intention to visit). We found
that under the condition of an average destination reputation, there are
no significant differences in the tourists' responses to the two DSR
motive attributions. However, DSR activities can strengthen destination
trust and intention to visit with the intrinsic motives condition when
the destination's reputation is good. Last, we found that destination
trust mediates the interaction effects between DSR motive attribution
and the destination's reputation on tourists' intentions to visit.
Especially in the case of a good destination reputation, the influence of
this interaction on intention to visit has an indirect positive effect
through destination trust, while the average destination reputation has
no effect. Below we discuss the significance of this study, both its the-
oretical contributions and its practice implications, followed by the
discussion.
7.2. Theoretical contributions
Although previous studies of DSR have explored the impacts of DSR
on destination stakeholders (e.g., Su et al., 2017; Su et al., 2018a, b, c;
Su, Huang, & Pearce, 2018; Su & Swanson, 2017), few studies have
investigated DSR motive attribution and the differences of tourist re-
sponses under different motive attributions. Actually, the previous
studies have found that stakeholders may attribute different motives to
social responsibility behavior, such as extrinsic motives and intrinsic
motives, and respond to them differently (e.g., Du et al., 2007; Pai et al.,
2015; Story & Neves, 2015; Vlachos et al., 2013b). To fill the research
gap, this is the first study to examine DSR motives from the perspective
of tourists, and find its significant impact on tourists' trust and inten-
tions to visit under the intrinsic motive situation, which refines and
deepens the research on social responsibility in tourism destinations.
Furthermore, the mediating role in the relationship between DSR
motive attribution and intention to visit is still unknown in the existing
literature. Previous studies explored the impact of CSR attributions and
organization trust on employee behavior and found that trust is a very
10
Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970
significant mediator in this relationship (Vlachos et al., 2009, Vlachos,
Theotokis, & Panagopoulos, 2010). In the context of tourism, some
scholars have studied and confirmed the positive influence of destina-
tion trust on tourists' intentions to visit (e.g., Abubakar & Ilkan, 2016;
Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Han & Hyun, 2015). Nevertheless, little tourism
literature has explored how trust is fostered and what factors impact the
tourist's trust towards a destination (Artigas et al., 2017). This study
addressed this research gap and found that destination trust partly
mediated the relationship between DSR motive attribution and inten-
tion to visit. Specifically, when DSR activities are perceived to have
intrinsic motives, the tourist will have a strong sense of trust, and in
turn, generate a greater intention to visit the destination. These findings
not only underscore the importance of destination trust as a key med-
iator and extend the application context of organizational trust in the
tourism industry, but also further verify the internal mechanism of DSR
motive attribution and intention to visit.
Moreover, we examined how destination reputation moderates the
influence of DSR motive attribution on destination trust and intention
to visit. Previous studies of destination reputation have examined the
impact of destination reputation as a determinant or mediator for
tourists' behavior (e.g., Christou, 2007; Loureiro & Kastenholz, 2011).
However, few studies have explored the moderating effects of desti-
nation reputation on tourists' responses and its antecedents. This study
distinguished two types of destination reputation (good and average)
and found that there is no significant difference between the relation-
ship of DSR motive attribution and tourists' responses under the con-
dition of an average destination reputation. However, if the destination
has a good reputation, DSR activities can enhance destination trust and
tourists' intentions to visit as long as tourists perceive these DSR ac-
tivities were driven by intrinsic motives. These results reveal the
boundary effect of destination reputation among DSR motive attribu-
tion and tourists' responses, as well as enrich the literature of reputation
in this field and offer some new insights.
Finally, the study provided a clear explanation of whether the in-
termediary process of destination trust is moderated by the reputation
of the tourist destination. The findings show that when the destination
has a good reputation, the DSR motive attribution can enhance the trust
of tourists and result in stronger intentions to visit, while this effect is
significant when the destination's reputation is average. This helps us to
discuss in depth the mechanism of DSR motive attribution on the in-
tention to visit, and answers the question of when and how DSR motive
attribution affects intention to visit. These results, in addition to pro-
viding another level to the existing understanding of destination re-
putation and DSR activities, fills in holes in the research about the in-
teraction effects between CSR motive attributions and corporate
reputation in the tourism destination setting.
7.3. Managerial implications
Our conclusions in this study have some marketing management
implications for practitioners as well. The most important point is that
tourism destination managers can effectively use the intrinsic motives
of DSR and good destination reputation to stimulate a strong sense of
trust in the destination, thereby increasing the visit intentions of more
existing or potential tourists.
First, the findings of Study 1 showed that intrinsic DSR motive at-
tribution is of great importance to enhance tourists' trust and intentions
to visit a destination. Therefore, tourism destination managers should
focus on tourists' DSR attributions, and also fulfill their social respon-
sibilities based on the intrinsic motives. For example, at the social level,
they should actively undertake social charity responsibilities, give back
to society, and pay attention to community development in tourist
destinations. In terms of ecology, it is necessary to reduce environ-
mental pollution, increase environmental protection efforts, and then
regularly carry out publicity activities for environmental protection in
tourist destinations. At the same time, tourism destinations should
L. Su, et al.
make full use of media, social networks, and other media, and adopt a
reasonable and effective way to establish a platform for disclosure of
social responsibility behaviors in tourism destinations, and in a timely
way convey and express the intrinsic motives value driven by the DSR
activities, thereby reducing tourists' doubt and negative emotions, so as
to strengthen the psychological bond between tourists and the desti-
nation in order to achieve positive behaviors such as tourist purchase,
loyalty, or word-of-mouth.
Second, considering the positive impact of destination trust on in-
tention to visit, this finding provided important implications for all
destination service providers, including tour operations, ground trans-
portation, airlines, lodging, restaurants, and so on, because these ser-
vice providers supply key elements of destination tourism experiences.
Their service performances determine destination reputation and
tourists' trust towards a destination. Therefore, destination service
providers are recommended to encourage tourists to participate in
green initiatives to support sustainable destination development. In
addition, they should ensure that their intrinsic motives for DSR ac-
tivities are clearly communicated to tourists, which ultimately enhances
tourists' sense of trust towards the tourism destination.
Third, this study verified the moderating role of destination re-
putation in the relationship between DSR motive attribution and tourist
responses. Consequently, tourism destination managers should attach
importance to their own reputation management and look for ways to
implement reputation management strategies. Especially in the context
of social media, tourism destination managers should pay more atten-
tion to the importance of destination reputation, make full use of the
reputation index and big data for comprehensive analysis, and make
targeted improvements to tourism products and services, so as to im-
prove the destination reputation. More importantly, this study further
shows that destination reputation can change the effects of extrinsic
and intrinsic motives of social responsibility on tourists' responses.
Tourist destinations with a good reputation should take advantage of
social media to foster intrinsic DSR motive attribution among tourists,
thereby increasing the attractiveness of the destination.
8. Research limitations and future research directions
This research has verified the conceptual model through three ex-
perimental studies and obtained some important conclusions and im-
plications. Yet, there are still some limitations that provide directions
for future research. First, the experimental research in this study used a
fictitious tourism destination in the stimuli. Although we can control
the interference of the tourist-destination relationship in this study's
hypotheses to a certain extent, the study may lack external validity.
Therefore, future studies can use real tourism destinations as experi-
mental stimuli or conduct field research to improve the external va-
lidity of our research findings.
Second, our experiments focused on destination trust and intention
to visit as outcome variables of DSR motive attribution. Future studies
can consider investigating other outcome variables (such as resistance
to negative information, tourist loyalty, etc.), and further explore the
interactive effects of DSR motive attribution and other variables, thus
forming a more comprehensive theoretical framework of tourist re-
sponses to DSR initiatives.
Finally, other factors beyond destination reputation are not taken
into account in this study. In the future, other moderating variables can
be introduced into the model to further explore the impact of DSR
motive attribution on tourist responses and its underlying mechanism.
For example, Groza et al. (2011) found that the information sources of
CSR activities would influence customers' attributions for CSR motives,
and thus affect their attitudes towards the company and purchase in-
tentions. Therefore, under the background of the rise of network social
media, it is also worth exploring whether the social responsibility ac-
tivities of tourism destinations released through internal platforms or
external media have a moderating effect between DSR motive
11
Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970
attribution and tourist responses. Moreover, we used all Chinese sam-
ples for the study. But there is evidence that altruistic values could play
a mediating role in the relationship between organizational motive
attribution and consumer responses (Zasuwa, 2016). In particular, for
altruistic consumers, self-centered CSR motive attribution may have a
negative impact on consumers' attitudes and purchase intentions
(Zasuwa, 2016). Thus, it would be helpful in future studies to consider
individuals' views of values as a moderator to explore tourists' reactions
to DSR activities.
Author contribution
Authors Lujun Su, Qi Lian, and Yinghua Huang equally contributed
to this study.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China (No. 71774176, 71573279, 71974206), and
National Science Foundation of Distinguished Young Scholars of Hunan
Province (No. 2017JJ1032).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.103970.
References
Abubakar, A. M., & Ilkan, M. (2016). Impact of online WOM on destination trust and
intention to travel: A medical tourism perspective. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management, 5, 192–201.
Abubakar, A. M., Ilkan, M., Al-Tal, R. M., & Eluwole, K. K. (2017). eWOM, revisit in-
tention, destination trust and gender. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
31, 220–227.
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of
customer-company identification: Expanding the role of relationship marketing.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574–585.
Artigas, E. M., Yrigoyen, C. C., Moraga, E. T., & Villalón, C. B. (2017). Determinants of
trust towards tourist destinations. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 6,
327–334.
Bae, J., & Cameron, G. T. (2006). Conditioning effect of prior reputation on perception of
corporate giving. Public Relations Review, 32(2), 144–150.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social
Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204.
Batson, C. D. (1998). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.
Lindzey (Vol. Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 4, (pp. 282–316). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley Press.
Bolton, L., & Mattila, A. S. (2015). How does corporate social responsibility affect con-
sumer response to service failure in buyer-seller relationship? Journal of Retailing,
91(1), 140–153.
Bordonova-Juste, M. V., & Polo-Redondo, Y. (2004). Relationships in franchised dis-
tribution system: The case of the Spanish market. International Review of Retail
Distribution & Consumer Research, 14(1), 101–127.
Castaldo, S., Perrini, F., Misani, N., & Tencati, A. (2009). The missing link between cor-
porate social responsibility and consumer trust: The case of fair-trade products.
Journal of Business Ethics, 84(1), 1–15.
Chen, Z., & Dubinsky, A. J. (2003). A conceptual model of perceived customer value in e-
commerce: A preliminary investigation. Psychology and Marketing, 20(4), 323–347.
Chen, C.-F., & Phou, S. (2013). A closer look at destination: Image, personality, re-
lationship and loyalty. Tourism Management, 36, 269–278.
Chiou, J., & Drog, C. (2006). Service quality, trust, specific asset investment, and ex-
pertise: Direct and indirect effects in a satisfaction-loyalty framework. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 613–627.
Christou, E. (2003). Guest loyalty likelihood in relation to hotels' corporate image and
reputation: A study of three countries in Europe. Journal of Hospitality & Leisure
Marketing, 10(3/4), 85–99.
Christou, E. (2007). Tourist destinations as brands: The impact of destination image and
reputation on visitor loyalty. In P. Keller, & T. Bieger (Eds.). Productivity in tourism:
Fundamentals and concepts for achieving growth and competitiveness (pp. 57–67). Berlin:
Erich Schmidt Verlag.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate
social responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.
Eisingerich, B. A., & Bell, J. S. (2008). Perceived service quality and customer trust: Does
enhancing customers' service knowledge matter? Journal of Service Research, 10(3),
L. Su, et al.
256–268.
Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand per-
sonality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 127–139.
Elkins, J. R. (1976). Corporations and the criminal law: An uneasy alliance. Kentucky Law
Journal, 65, 73–129.
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building corporate associations: Consumer
attributions for corporate socially responsible programs? Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157.
Elving, W. J. L. (2013). Scepticism and corporate social responsibility communications:
The influence of fit and reputation. Journal of Marketing Communications, 19(4),
277–292.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flavián, C., Guinalíu, M., & Gurrea, R. (2005). The role placed by perceived usability,
satisfaction and consumer trust on website royalty. Information & Management, 43,
1–14.
Fombrun, C., & Riel, C. V. (1997). The reputational landscape. Corporate Reputation
Review, 1(2), 1–16.
Gao, Y., & Mattila, A. (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.
Gefen, D., Straub, D., & Boudreau, M. C. (2000). Structural equation modeling and re-
gression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for
Information Systems, 4(1), 7.
Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence biases. Psychological Bulletin,
117(1), 21.
Godfrey, P. C. (2005). The relationship between corporate philanthropy and shareholder
wealth: A risk management perspective. Academy of Management Review, 30(4),
777–798.
Groza, M. D., Pronschinske, M. R., & Walker, M. (2011). Perceived organizational motives
and consumer responses to proactive and reactive CSR. Journal of Business Ethics,
102(4), 639–652.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. (2013). Image congruence and relationship quality in predicting
switching intention: Conspicuousness of product use as a moderator variable. Journal
of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 37(3), 303–329.
Han, H., & Hyun, S. (2015). Customer retention in the medical tourism industry: Impact
of quality, satisfaction, trust, and price reasonableness. Tourism Management, 46(1),
20–29.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology, 21(1),
107–112.
Hillenbrand, C., Money, K., & Pavelin, S. (2012). Stakeholder-defined corporate respon-
sibility for a pre-credit-crunch financial service company: Lessons for how good re-
putations are won and lost. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(3), 337–356.
Inoue, Y., & Lee, S. (2011). Effects of different dimensions of corporate social responsi-
bility on corporate financial performance in tourism-related industries. Tourism
Management, 32(4), 790–804.
Johnson, D., & Grayson, K. (2005). Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships.
Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 500–507.
Kang, K. H., Stein, L., Heo, C. Y., & Lee, S. (2012). Consumers' willingness to pay for green
initiatives of the hotel industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31,
564–572.
Karaosmanoglu, E., Altinigne, N., & Isiksal, D. G. (2016). CSR motivation and customer
extra-role behavior: Moderation of ethical corporate identity. Journal of Business
Research, 69(10), 4161–4167.
Kassem, N. O., Lee, J. W., & Modeste, N. N. (2003). Understanding soft drink consumption
among female adolescents using the theory of planned behaviour. Health Education
Research, 18(3), 278–291.
Keh, H. T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer behavioral intentions:
The roles of trust, identification and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management,
38(7), 732–742.
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2),
107–128.
Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of
Psychology, 31(1), 457–501.
Kim, Y. (2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility(CSR): Effects
of stated motives and corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. Public Relations
Review, 40, 838–840.
Kim, S. H., & Oh, S. H. (2002). The effects of internet shopping mall characteristics on
satisfaction, trust, and loyalty. The Korean Small Business Review, 24(2), 237–271.
Lam, T., & Hsu, C. (2006). Predicting behavioral intention of choosing a travel destina-
tion. Tourism Management, 27(4), 589–599.
Leblanc, G., & Nguyen, N. (1995). Cues used by customers evaluating corporate image in
service firms. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 7(2), 44–56.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Drumwright, M. E., & Braig, B. M. (2004). The effect of corporate
social responsibility on customer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits.
Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16–32.
Lii, Y., & Lee, M. (2012). Doing right leads to doing well: When the type of CSR and
reputation interact to affect consumer evaluations of the firm. Journal of Business
Ethics, 105(1), 69–81.
Li, Y. Q., Liu, B. Q., & Huan, T. C. (2019). Renewal or not? Consumer response to a
renewed corporate social responsibility strategy: Evidence from the coffee shop in-
dustry. Tourism Management, 72, 170–179.
Lin, L. Y., & Lu, C. Y. (2010). The influence of corporate image, relationship marketing,
and trust on purchase intention: The moderating effects of word-of-mouth. Tourism
12
Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970
Review, 65(3), 16–34.
Loureiro, S. M. C., & González, F. J. M. (2008). The importance of quality, satisfaction,
trust, and image in relation to rural tourist loyalty. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 25(2), 117–136.
Loureiro, S. M. C., & Kastenholz, E. (2011). Corporate reputation, satisfaction, delight,
and loyalty towards rural lodging units in Portugal. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 30(3), 575–583.
Lu, J., Hung, K., Wang, L., Schuett, M. A., & Hu, L. (2016). Do perceptions of time affect
outbound travel motivations and intention? An investigation among Chinese seniors.
Tourism Management, 53, 1–12.
Marinao, E., Torres, E., & Chasco, C. (2012). Trust in tourism destinations. The role of
local inhabitants and institutions Academia. Revista Latinoamericana Délelőtt
Administración, 51, 27–47.
Marin, L., Ruiz, S., & Rubio, A. (2009). The role of identity salience in the effects of
corporate social responsibility on consumer behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,
84(1), 65–78.
Mohammed Abubakar, A. (2016). Does eWOM influence destination trust and travel in-
tention: A medical tourism perspective. Economic Research - Ekonomska Istraživanja,
29(1), 598–611.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment–trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Pai, D.-C., Lai, C.-S., Chiu, C.-J., & Yang, C.-F. (2015). Corporate social responsibility and
brand advocacy in business-to-business market: The mediated moderating effect of
attribution. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(4), 685–696.
Papadimitriou, D., Kaplanidou, K., & Apostolopoulou, A. (2015). Destination image
components and word-of-mouth intentions in urban tourism: A multigroup approach.
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 42(4), 503–527.
Park, E. (2019). Corporate social responsibility as a determinant of corporate reputation
in the airline industry. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 47, 215–221.
Park, J., Lee, H., & Kim, C. (2014). Corporate social responsibilities, consumer trust and
corporate reputation: South Korean consumers' perspectives. Journal of Business
Research, 67, 295–302.
Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce
adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30,
115–143.
Pavlou, P. A., Liang, H., & Xue, Y. (2007). Understanding and mitigating uncertainty in
online exchange relationships: A principal-agent perspective. MIS Quarterly, 31(1),
105–136.
Petrick, J. F. (2011). Segmenting cruise passengers with perceived reputation. Journal of
Hospitality and Tourism Management, 18(1), 48–53.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending allport's cognitive
analysis of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461–476.
Roodurmun, J., & Juwaheer, T. D. (2010, August). Influence of trust on destination
loyalty-an empirical analysis-the discussion of the research approach. International
research symposium in service management: Vol. 7, (pp. 1–23). Reduit, Mauritius: Le
Meridien Hotel.
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. A. (2006). Employee reactions
to corporate social responsibility: An organizational justice framework. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543.
Selnes, F., & Sallis, J. (2003). Promoting relationship learning. Journal of Marketing,
67(3), 80–95.
Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention—behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review.
European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36.
Sheldon, P. J., & Park, S.-Y. (2011). An exploratory study of corporate social responsi-
bility in the U.S. travel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 50, 392–407.
Siu, N. Y.-M., Zhang, T. J.-F., & Kwan, H.-Y. (2014). Effect of corporate social responsi-
bility, customer attribution and prior expectation on post-recovery satisfaction.
International Journal of Hospitality Management, 43, 87–97.
Story, J., & Neves, P. (2015). When corporate social responsibility (CSR) increases per-
formance: Exploring the role of intrinsic and extrinsic CSR attribution. Business Ethics:
A European Review, 24(2), 111–124.
Su, L., & Huang, Y. (2019). How does perceived destination social responsibility impact
revisit intentions: The mediating roles of destination preference and relationship
quality. Sustainability, 11, 133.
Su, L., Huang, Y., & Hsu, M. (2018a). 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.
Su, L., Huang, S., & Huang, J. (2018b). 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.
Su, L., Huang, S., & Pearce, J. (2018c). How does destination social responsibility con-
tribute to environmentally responsible behaviour? A destination resident perspective.
Journal of Business Research, 86, 179–189.
Su, L., Huang, S. S., & Pearce, J. (2019). Toward a model of destination resident-en-
vironment relationship: The case of Gulangyu, China. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing, 36(4), 469–483.
Su, L., & Swanson, S. R. (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.
Su, L., & Swanson, S. R. (2019). Perceived corporate social responsibility's impact on the
well-being and supportive green behaviors of hotel employees: The mediating role of
the employee-corporate relationship. Tourism Management, 72, 437–450.
Su, L., Wang, L., Law, R., Chen, X., & Fong, D. (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.
Thomson, M., McInnis, D., & Park, W. (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength
L. Su, et al. Tourism Management 77 (2020) 103970

of consumers' emotional attachment to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, Qi Lian is a graduate student in the School of Business at
77–91. the Central South University, China. Her research interests
Tourigny, L., Han, J., Baba, V. V., & Pan, P. (2019). Ethical leadership and corporate focus on destination social responsibility and tourist beha-
social responsibility in China: A multilevel study of their effects on trust and orga- vior.
nizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(2), 427–440.
Um, S., & Crompton, J. L. (1990). Attitude determinants in tourism destination choice.
Annals of Tourism Research, 17, 432–448.
Vlachos, P. A., Epitropaki, O., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2013a). Causal at-
tributions and employee reactions to corporate social responsibility. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 6(4), 334–337.
Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., Bachrach, D. G., & Morgeson, F. P. (2017). The
effects of managerial and employee attributions for corporate social responsibility
initiatives. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(7), 1111–1129.
Vlachos, P. A., Panagopoulos, N. G., & Rapp, A. A. (2013b). Feeling good by doing good:
Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic
leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 118(3), 577–588. Yinghua Huang is an associate professor at Department of
Vlachos, P. A., Theotokis, A., & Panagopoulos, N. G. (2010). Sales force reactions to Hospitality, Tourism and Event Management, San José
corporate social responsibility: Attributions, outcomes, and the mediating role of State University, USA. She received her Ph.D. in Hotel and
organizational trust. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(7), 1207–1218. Restaurant Administration from Oklahoma State
Vlachos, P. A., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A., & Avramidis, P. K. (2009). Corporate University, USA. Her research interests include destination
social responsibility: Attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of marketing, place attachment, service management and re-
the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180. search methods. Dr. Huang has published more than 20
Walker, M., Heere, B., Parent, M. M., & Drane, D. (2010). Social responsibility and the referred articles in scholarly journals, such as Journal of
olympic games: The mediating role of consumer attributions. Journal of Business Travel Research, International Journal of Contemporary
Ethics, 95(4), 659–680. Hospitality Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal
Walsh, G., Mitchell, V. W., & Jackson, P. (2009). Examining the antecedents and con- of Hospitality Marketing & Management, among others.
sequences of corporate reputation: A customer perspective. British Journal of
Management, 19(2), 187–203.
Wang, L., Law, R., Hung, K., & Guillet, B. D. (2014). Consumer trust in tourism and
hospitality: A review of the literature. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management,
21, 1–9.
Windsor, D. (2006). Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(1), 93–114.
Yoon, E., Guffey, H. J., & Kijewski, V. (1993). The effects of information and company
reputation on intentions to buy a business service. Journal of Business Research, 27(3),
215–228.
Yoon, Y., Gürhan-Canli, Z., & Schwarz, N. (2006). The effect of corporate social re-
sponsibility (CSR) activities on companies with bad reputations. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 16(4), 377–390.
Zasuwa, G. (2016). Do the ends justify the means? How altruistic values moderate con-
sumer responses to corporate social initiatives. Journal of Business Research, 69,
3714–3719.

Lujun Su is a professor of marketing in the School of

Business at the Central South University, China. He holds a
Ph.D. degree in Tourism Management from Xiamen
University, China. Dr. Su's research interests include tourist
loyalty behavior, destination marketing, and destination
management. He has published 80 referred articles in
scholarly journals, such as Tourism Management, Journal of
Business Research, Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, and
Journal of Travel &Tourism Marketing.

13