Next Article in Journal
Trade Union Members’ Experiences and Attitudes towards Working from Home during the Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
The Mediating Role of Sustainable Dynamic Capabilities in the Effect of Social Customer Relationship Management on Sustainable Competitive Advantage: A Study on SMEs in Saudi Arabia
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 3
10.3390/su15031951
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

How Has COVID-19 Changed the Way We Travel? Exploring Tourist Personality, Reactions to the Perceived Risk and Change in Travel Behavior

by
Sanja Kovačić
1,2,*,
Marija Cimbaljević
1,
Tatyana N. Tretyakova
2,
Yulia A. Syromiatnikova
2,
Blanca García Henche
3,
Marko D. Petrović
2,4,
Ivana Blešić
1,2,
Tatjana Pivac
1,
Dunja Demirović Bajrami
2,4 and
Tamara Gajić
2,4
1
Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia
2
Institute of Sports, Tourism and Service, South Ural State University, 76, Lenin Prospekt, 454080 Chelyabinsk, Russia
3
Faculty of Economic, Business and Tourism Sciences, Universidad de Alcalá, Plaza Victoria, sn, 28802 Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
4
Geographical Institute “Jovan Cvijić” SASA, Djure Jakšića St. 9, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(3), 1951; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su15031951
Submission received: 13 December 2022 / Revised: 16 January 2023 / Accepted: 17 January 2023 / Published: 19 January 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 pandemic created novel conditions for researching travel behavior and tourists’ reactions in times of crisis, which largely differs from previous studies of travel behavior affected by local risks or lower travel and recreational risks. This study aims to provide an understanding of the relationship between tourist personality (MINI IPIP-6 and sensation seeking), tourists’ reactions to travel risk perception and changes in their travel behavior influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. To explore this, a global survey including 905 respondents from four countries (Spain, Croatia, Serbia and Russia) was conducted, while data were analyzed by Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in AMOS. The findings suggest that tourist personality affects the changes in travel behavior influenced by COVID-19, both directly and via their reactions to travel risk.

1. Introduction

The tourism industry has experienced many challenges up to now, some of them having global effects, such as the 9/11 attacks, financial crisis of 2008–2010, the epidemy of SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) and many others [1]. It was the third time in less than two decades that the world was hit by epidemics caused by a coronavirus [2], but the magnitude and effect of the new coronavirus (COVID-19) seemed to be without precedence [3]. Its fast spreading all over the world created fear among people [4], so even before the introduction of travel restrictions by various countries, many travelers started canceling their trips due to the fear and concern for their safety and security [5]. What is evident is that not all travelers responded the same to the crisis, some showing more restricted travel behavior than others. Thus, the current study is based on the belief that such differences in behavior are dependent on tourist personality and different reactions to the perceived risks. Hence, in the times ahead, the tourism industry needs to capture the psychological profile of people and explore how it relates to their travel behavioral responses to crises. This would mean differentiating the personality of those who will still travel without their changing behavior and those who would travel with restrictions or would cancel all their trips. Such information could assist managers in creating their promotional and re-branding campaigns.
Given this situation, it is necessary to bear in mind that research on travel behavior in risky situations is not a novel area of research. Many authors acknowledged that tourists perceive and respond to risks differently based on their personality traits [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. However, such studies were mainly based on natural hazards that occurred locally or on lower to moderate recreational and travel risks. When it comes to global risks, such as COVID-19 or previous epidemics of SARS, researchers specifically pointed out the importance of exploring travel behavior during times of crisis [13]. However, the study of Wen, Huimin and Kavanaugh [13] focused on travel behavior in general, without seeking empirical explanations of such behavior. The current study intends to go further by exploring the impact of tourist personality on tourists’ reactions to the perceived risk and their change in travel behavior influenced by COVID-19. Besides the six basic personality traits, which are measured by the Mini IPIP-6 model, the study also explored how sensation seeking traits affect reactions to travel risks as well as changes in travel behavior in times of crisis. In light of this, three main research questions have been formed:
RQ1:
How do tourists with different personality traits differ in their reactions to travel risk perception?
RQ2:
How do tourists’ reactions to travel risk affect change in travel behavior in the time of coronavirus?
RQ3:
Are these relationships moderated by the announcement of the coronavirus pandemic?
In this paper, the official announcement of a coronavirus pandemic (11 March 2020) has been explored as a moderating variable, as we suppose that this “event” created more fear among people and moderated the influence of their personality on the reactions to travel risk and changes in travel behavior. Thus, this paper intends to find the answers to this research question and thus contribute to the theoretical knowledge in the field of travel behavior in risky times.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. COVID-19 and Tourism Studies

In the past two years, the influence of COVID-19 on tourism has been studied from many different perspectives. Besides numerous papers that dealt with managerial aspects of coping with the COVID crisis in tourism destinations and COVID-19 impacts on destinations [1,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23], a significant number of studies also focused on tourist behavior in the time of crisis [21,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31], due to its important practical and theoretical importance for the tourism industry. According to Yang, Zhang and Rickly [32] who have done a systematic literature review of early COVID-19 papers, some of the most popular topics referring to tourist behavior during COVID-19 included tourists’ perceptions, intention to visit, psychology and their well-being.
According to them, papers dealing with the psychological effects and behavior of tourists mainly focused on how people feel about and respond to risk. Regarding psychological factors, some papers also explored the relationship between psychological traits and intention to visit [28,31,33], stress and fear caused by the pandemic [17,21,34], and adhering to pandemic rules [35]. However, there were no studies to explore the role of personality in tourists’ reactions to the perceived risks and their changes in travel behavior influenced by COVID-19. The additional novelty of this study is that it tends to explore how the announcement of pandemics in the media affected the mentioned relationships.

2.2. Perception of Health Risk and Travel Behavior

People often avoid tourist destinations they perceive as “risky” for their safety and security [36]. No matter if these risks are health-related, or related to war, terrorism, political instability, crime or natural disasters, they greatly influence travel intentions and decision making [8,12,37,38,39,40]. Health risks, as an integral part of the nature of travel, could endanger the safety and security of travelers [41]. This can make tourists feel afraid, anxious and uncomfortable enjoying their travel or even going on a trip. In this way, the perception of risks largely influences tourist travel behavior [13,41]. In addition, a study by Wong and Yeh [42] indicated that tourists may react differently in cases where they feel that risks are too high; however, they do not explain what impacts such a difference in behavior.
There is a large body of literature concerning the impact of different risks on the tourism industry such as natural hazards [12,39,43,44], political instability and terrorism [45,46,47,48] or health-related risks such as SARS [13], MERS [49], malaria [50], etc. The study by Reisinger and Mavondo [8] found that tourists are the most concerned about terrorist threats, followed by health, financial and lastly, social and cultural risks. Moreover, they concluded that among all the risks associated with travel, political stability and a healthy environment that is free from epidemic disease, had a major effect on the tourist’s perception of risk. The fact that makes the health risks, such as virus outbreaks, different in the context of tourism impacts is that they tend to spread globally and have an impact on a larger territory, compared to natural hazards or political instability which is usually related to the specific geographical region or location. When it comes to the existing studies on virus outbreaks and the travel industry, the literature is quite scarce, mainly focusing on the impacts on the travel industry and related sectors. The majority of papers deal with the impact of the first coronavirus SARS on the tourism industry [13,51,52]. These studies mainly showed that the outbreak of SARS influenced the changes in tourism behavior while traveling (reduced travel expenses, travel by land, travel to more isolated destinations, paying more attention to hygiene and safety when making travel decisions, are more interested in outdoor activities, eco-tourism and short-distance destinations) more than tourists’ decision to travel. The first study on the influence of the COVID-19 outbreak on travel behavior was conducted by the M3 Center for Hospitality Technology and Innovation at the University of South Florida including 2000 travelers from more than 20 countries. This study showed that the perceived images of the affected areas are highly damaged, and 57.55% of respondents will not travel until the coronavirus threat is over.
Although some of these studies focused on the impact of risk on travel behavior and travel decisions, none of them have made the relation between tourists’ reaction to the travel risk, their personality and their changes in travel behavior influenced by the risky situation. One study dealing with tourists’ different reactions to risk has been conducted in the field of natural hazards by Thapa et al. [44], who analyzed wildfires in the context of Florida (USA). Their study identified three types of tourists based on their reactionary behaviors to the perceived risk—middle-risk Conscious Travelers (the most dominant), higher risk (Cautious Travelers) and lower risk (Courageous Travelers) segments. The current study intends to get a deeper insight into the psychological profile of those types of travelers and how these reactions to risks are related to the change in travel behavior influenced by the current global outbreak of COVID-19. Such findings could assist destination marketers and managers in creating their promotional and rebranding campaigns after the crisis. Tourism has been one of the sectors worst affected by the COVID-19 pandemic: hotels, restaurants, airlines and travel agencies had to stop their activity almost completely for a long period and only now touristic activity is slowly recovering back to pre-2020 levels. However, the pandemic has also accelerated the changes in tourist behavior and the transition to more sustainable models of tourism [53]. According to the UNWTO [54], international tourism is on track to reach 65% of pre-pandemic levels by the end of 2022, as the sector continues to recover from the pandemic. This indicates that destination marketers and managers still need to put extra effort to attract tourists by specifically tailored marketing and rebranding campaigns based on new research insights. In light of this, the current and similar research is still very much relevant in the post-pandemic period.

2.3. Perception of Health Risk and Travel Behavior

The notion that tourists show different travel behaviors in risky situations based on their personality is the idea that has intrigued scientists for almost five decades [7,8,9,10,11,12,55,56,57]. The existing studies dealing with crises and travel risks, as Aschauer [58] argues, focus on economic impacts rather than the psychological effects of tourism crises, without explaining the experience and behavior of travelers. Aschauer’s [58] study intended to fill in this gap and explain perceptions of tourists at a risky destination affected by terrorism. His study revealed that psychological factors are those that matter. He found that openness for change had the strongest influence on travel needs, while sensation seeking showed the only weak impact on security feelings during travel. Many studies claim that sensation seeking is related to risk perception and intention to visit risky destinations [6,7,9,10]. The majority of these studies show that people who score high in sensation seeking see destinations as less risky and show greater intention to visit them. However, Lepp and Gibson [6] argue that sensation seeking is not related to the perception of risk, but sensation seekers are more ready to travel to the regions of the world rated as riskier. In the context of this study, this would suggest that people who score high in sensation seeking will show less cautious travel behavior based on the perceived risk in times of crisis and would probably show greater intention to travel during risky times. Moreover, the study by Torres, Wei and Ridderstaat [59], which explored how sensation seeking affects tourists’ willingness to purchase travel-related activities during COVID-19, revealed that sensation seeking is an important driver of consumers’ willingness to purchase amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Based on this, the first hypothesis of the study is:
Hypothesis 1a.
Sensation seeking positively influences Courageous behavior.
Hypothesis 1b.
Sensation seeking negatively influences Cautious behavior.
When it comes to other personality traits and their influence on travel behavior and intention to visit risky locations, there are only a few studies in the tourism field. The study by Kovačić et al. [12] explored the role of six personality traits (Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness, Agreeableness, Neuroticism and Honesty–Humility) in travel behavior based on the perceived risk of natural hazards in Greece and found that Extraversion and Agreeableness positively influenced Conscious behavior. This indicates that people who are more extraverts and agreeable will still travel to a risky destination but in the case that they perceive as a moderate risk. Some other studies in tourism [8,60] also showed that extroverted and confident tourists will engage more frequently in risky activities. A few studies also explored the role of personality in tourists’ intention to travel during the COVID-19 pandemic [28,31]. Tepavčević et al. [28] also concluded that travel intention during COVID-19 was positively influenced by Extroversion. Moreover, Talwar et al. [31] explored the influence of the Big Five personality traits on travel intentions during COVID-19 pandemics, and revealed that Extraversion had the strongest influence on intentions to travel during the pandemic. Based on this, we can suggest the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2.
Extraversion will positively influence Courageous behavior.
Hypothesis 3a.
Agreeableness will positively influence Cautious behavior.
Hypothesis 3b.
Agreeableness will negatively influence Courageous behavior.
A study by Kovačić et al. [12] also showed that Conscientiousness positively influences Cautious behavior, meaning that conscientious people will certainly avoid such a destination even in case of low risk. Tepavčević et al. [28] also revealed that travel intention during COVID-19 was negatively affected by Conscientiousness. Taking into account that virus epidemics represent high health risks, it is also relevant to mention one study out of the tourism field, conducted by Weller and Tikir [61]. This study explored domain-specific risk taking and HEXACO personality (Extraversion, Emotionality, Agreeableness, Consciousness, Openness to Experience and Honesty–Humility). This study concluded that conscientiousness showed a significant negative effect on risk perception in all domains. In addition, Lee and Tseng [62] revealed that conscientiousness had a negative effect on the risk-taking attitude of recreationalists. Based on this, we suggest that:
Hypothesis 4a.
Conscientiousness will positively influence Cautious behavior.
Hypothesis 4b.
Conscientiousness will negatively influence Courageous behavior.
The study by Kovačić et al. [12] also revealed the negative influence of Openness on Cautious behavior is mediated by tourism worries. Moreover, Lee and Tseng [62] revealed that extraversion and openness positively influenced the risk-taking attitude of recreationalists. In addition, McCrae [63] found significant correlations between Openness to Experience and sensation-seeking traits, suggesting that we could expect similar relationships between these traits with behavior based on perceived risk. Talwar et al. [31] revealed that Openness to Experience had the strongest influence on travel intentions after the pandemic. Based on this, we suggest that:
Hypothesis 5.
Openness to Experience will influence Courageous behavior.
The study by Korstanje [64] argued that risk perception is related to tourist personality, emphasizing the role of anxiety, which is tightly related to the personality trait neuroticism. This means that people who score high in neuroticism will be more cautious when deciding whether to travel in a risky period. Similarly, Tepavčević et al. [28] concluded that travel intention during COVID-19 was negatively affected by Neuroticism. Based on this, we suggest that:
Hypothesis 6.
Neuroticism will positively influence Cautious behavior.
Weller and Tikir [61] revealed that in the health domain, emotionality impacts higher risk perceptions and risk taking, while lower Honesty–Humility was associated with greater health/safety risk taking but lower risk perceptions. Moreover, the study by Kovačić et al. [12] revealed the positive influence of Honesty–Humility on Cautious behavior. Based on this, we suggest that:
Hypothesis 7.
Honesty–Humility will positively influence Cautious behavior.
In the context of changes in travel behavior influenced by a coronavirus, it is expected that:
Hypothesis 8.
Cautious behavior will positively influence all aspects of changes in travel behavior, namely (a) travel intentions, (b) travel preferences and (c) hygiene and safety.
Hypothesis 9.
Courageous behavior will negatively influence all aspects of changes in travel behavior, namely (a) travel intentions, (b) travel preferences and (c) hygiene and safety.
The hypotheses are presented in Figure 1.
By testing the proposed hypotheses in the tourism field and in the new context of the pandemic of COVID-19, this research will provide a deeper understanding of factors affecting travel behavior and decision making in a specific situation when the risk is present globally.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Sample

The study sample consists of 905 participants residing in four countries: Spain, Croatia, Serbia and Russia. The study applied convenience sampling, which refers to the inclusion of individuals in the sample who are easiest to reach, willing to participate and older than 18 years.
Table 1 shows the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents.
There was a slightly higher number of female respondents (53.6%), and the average age of the participants was 35.4. The majority of respondents are highly educated (44.4%). When it comes to marital status, the majority of respondents were single or in a relationship. Most frequently, they traveled abroad several times to date, or they travel once a year or several times a year. The respondents usually travel with friends, but also with children (Table 1).

3.2. Instruments

Data were collected through a questionnaire (see Supplementary Materials) that consisted of five parts. The first part included the socio-demographic characteristics of respondents (gender, age, education, marital status, country of origin) but also the frequency of travel and usual travel companions. The second part measured perceived travel risk. The scale by Thapa et al. [44] was slightly adjusted for this study to put it in the context of perceived travel risk related to coronavirus. The answers were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1—I totally disagree, 5—I totally agree). The third part of the questionnaire measured the personality traits of the respondents. The personality of the respondents was measured by the MINI IPIP-6 (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Openness to Experience, Honesty–Humility), a 24-item scale developed by Međedović and Bulut [65]. Međedović and Bulut [65] described these six traits as follows: Neuroticism (emotional instability, tendency to feel negative emotions), Extraversion (enjoyment in social interaction, gregariousness, activity), Agreeableness (cooperation, avoids arguments, empathy), Conscientiousness (orderliness, long-term planning, prudence), Openness to Experience (creative, openness to ideas, inquisitiveness) and Honesty–Humility (tendency to be fair and genuine when dealing with others in the sense of cooperating with others, even when someone might utilize them without suffering retaliation).
In addition to this, the fourth part included Sensation seeking as a personality trait measured by the 8-item scale developed by Hoyle et al. [66]. The answers were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1—I totally disagree, 5—I totally agree). Finally, change in travel behavior influenced by the coronavirus was measured using the scale from Wen, Huimin and Kavanaugh [13] that was originally developed for measuring the impacts of SARS on the consumer behavior of Chinese domestic tourists. The answers were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1—I totally disagree, 5—I totally agree).

3.3. Procedure

The survey has been conducted from the middle of February until the beginning of April 2020. It has been distributed by a combined approach—a standard pen-and-paper survey shared with friends, family and colleagues who also shared it with their close circle of people that they were seeing during the pandemic (in Spain, Croatia, Serbia, Russia) and an online Google doc survey used to approach respondents online. The online questionnaire has been shared by Facebook and email and respondents were asked to share the questionnaire to their social circles around the world (a combination of convenient sample and the snowball technique). A combination of pen-and-paper survey and online survey was used as it provided the possibility to include more individuals in the research, as the online survey was shared through social media and email and it was easier to reach the participants who were very cautious at that time. The lockdown in all four countries from March to June 2020 certainly made it more difficult to collect data in person, so the online versions were easier to distribute.
The survey was distributed in the following languages: Spanish, Croatian, Serbian and Russian. The questionnaire was back-translated to English in order to ensure the original meaning of the questions. The respondents were informed about the purpose of the questionnaire and that their participation is voluntary and anonymous. The total number of distributed questionnaires was 1200, out of which 905 were successfully completed (with 407 questionnaires collected online and 498 paper questionnaires), meaning that the response rate was 75.41%.

3.4. Data Analysis

To test our hypotheses, SEM (Structural equation modeling) in AMOS was used. Before conducting SEM, exploratory factor analysis was employed to check the factor structures (perceived travel risk and tourist behavior influenced by coronavirus). To evaluate the goodness of the model fit in SEM, the following model fit indices were used: chi-square statistics (c2), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI), Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). CFI, TLI and GFI generally have recommended fit indices greater than 0.9 for a satisfactory model fit, whereas an RMSEA value below 0.08 often demonstrates an acceptable fit [65]. For a satisfactory fit, the chi-square value should not be significant. Moreover, a series of multi-group analyses were conducted to test the model differences between respondents who filled in a questionnaire before and after the pandemic was officially announced by WHO.

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics and Measurement Model Validity

The descriptive statistics for all variables are presented in Table 2. It can be seen that Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for all variables/dimensions was above the recommended 0.7. This means that the instruments used in the study are reliable and that they measure the given constructs. Before conducting the path model, the convergent and divergent validity of the constructs were calculated to check the measurement model validity.
The convergent validity of each dimension was examined by calculating the score of the average variance extracted (AVE, see [67]). A substantial convergent validity was achieved when all item-to-factor loadings were significant and the AVE score was higher than 0.50 within each dimension; an AVE higher than 0.40 was still acceptable if composite reliability (CR) was higher than 0.60 [68,69]. The results showed that all dimensions had an AVE higher than 0.40 and CR higher than 0.60 (Table 2) which indicates good convergent validity. Discriminant validity was then checked by comparing the average variances extracted (AVEs) for each latent factor with the squared correlation estimates between latent constructs. Fornell and Larcker [68] noted that the discriminant validity is guaranteed when the AVEs are greater than the squared correlation estimates.
The squared correlations based on total scores ranged from 0.00 to 0.370, which was lower than AVE (Table 3). Thus, the results confirmed that all dimensions have sufficient discriminant validity [68,70].

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for Perceived Travel Risk

The scale used in this paper for measuring tourists’ reactions to the perceived travel risk is the scale developed by Thapa et al. [44] who applied it in their paper about wildfires in Florida to differentiate three types of tourists according to their perceived travel risk (Cautious, Courageous and Conscious travelers). As the scale was slightly adjusted to measure perceived travel risk related to coronavirus, the principal component analysis was applied to verify the factor structure. The representativeness was good (KMO = 0.899) and Bartlett’s sphericity test was significant (χ2(66) = 6328.56, p < 0.001), which confirmed that the data are suitable for the analysis. Based on the parallel analysis, two dimensions (Cautious and Courageous tourists) were extracted with 50.74% of the variance explained. Promax rotation was applied since the extracted components were correlated.
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) showed that in this study, there is no “middle” segment, and all respondents were grouped into two categories—Cautious and Courageous (Table 4).
Cautious and Courageous tourists showed very different reactions to perceived travel risks. For Cautious tourists, security was very important when choosing a destination. Thus, they would travel to a certain destination only if they were sure they would be safe. Otherwise, they would avoid such trips. For Courageous tourists, security was not so important when deciding where to travel. They probably would not cancel their trip because of the risky situation—i.e., the risky situation would not affect their travel plans and decisions.

4.3. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) for Changes in Tourist Behavior Influenced by a Coronavirus

The scale used in this paper for measuring the changes in tourist behavior influenced by COVID-19 was the scale developed by Wen, Huimin and Kavanaugh [13] for measuring the impacts of SARS on the consumer behavior of Chinese domestic tourists. To explore the factor structure, principal component analysis was applied. The representativeness was good (KMO = 0.927) and Bartlett’s sphericity test was significant (χ2(66) = 11,863.24, p < 0.001), which confirmed that the data are suitable for the analysis. Three dimensions were extracted with 62.41% of the variance explained (Table 5). Varimax rotation was applied since the extracted components were not correlated. Factor structure coincided with the factor structure in the study of Wen, Huimin and Kavanaugh [13], but the factors were renamed for better understanding: Travel intentions, Travel preferences, Hygiene and safety. Only one item (I will not take wild animals as food in the future) in the current model belongs to the Hygiene and safety factor instead of Travel preferences as in the original model, probably because respondents relate eating wild animals with their health safety.

4.4. Level of Concern before and after Pandemics

Since the data collection for this study begin in February and ended at the beginning of April, during this period, the perception of respondents might have changed due to the situation escalation in Europe and the official announcement of a pandemic by the WHO. To check if this influenced the level of respondents’ concern as well as their perceived risk, mean values for these variables were calculated and compared for two samples (the sample was divided by the time of data collection—before and after the 11th of March when the pandemic was officially announced—N before = 499, N after = 406).
Table 6 shows the concern that travelers or somebody from their family will become a victim of coronavirus increased after the official announcement of the pandemic and in the following period. The situation was the same in the case of travelers’ reaction to the perceived travel risk—they showed more cautious and less courageous behavior after the announced pandemic. Based on these findings, the authors assumed that the time when the surveys were completed might moderate the influence of personality traits on the perceived travel risk among travelers. This is why the moderation effect of this variable was tested by multigroup analysis in AMOS. Based on this, we can formulate hypothesis 10.
Hypothesis 10.
The time of survey completion (before/after pandemic) will moderate the relationship between personality traits and Cautious/Courageous behavior.

4.5. Results of the Path Model

The path model was conducted to test the suggested hypotheses of the study. The results of the first model did not provide a satisfactory model fit, suggesting the inclusion of a direct effect between Agreeableness and Hygiene and safety, Consciousness and Hygiene and safety, Sensation seeking and Travel preferences as well as Extraversion and Travel preferences. After running the model again, the structural model estimation indicated good fit indices. GFI = 0.994, RMR = 0.019, NFI = 0.986, RFI = 0.969, TLI = 0.995 and RMSEA = 0.014 were acceptable for addressing the hypothesized interrelations between each latent factor; the chi-square statistic was insignificant (χ2 = 37.329, df = 30, p = 0.168) which also confirmed the good model fit.
The results of our hypothesis tests indicated that all study hypotheses were supported, except for Hypotheses 3, 4 and 9b (Table 7).
More specifically, Sensation-seeking was positively related to Courageous behavior (Hypothesis 1a: β = 0.179, t = 5.071), and negatively to Cautious behavior (Hypothesis 1b: β = −0.123, t = −3.925). Contrary to expectations Extraversion and Openness to Experience did not show a significant influence on Courageous behavior, so Hypotheses 2 and 5 were rejected. Furthermore, Agreeableness was shown to positively influence Cautious behavior (Hypothesis 3a: β = 0.104, t = 2.823), and negatively influence Courageous behavior (Hypothesis 3b: β = −0.117, t = −2.819). The concept of Consciousness was significantly positively related to Cautious behavior (Hypothesis 4a: β = 0.177, t = 4.735), and negatively related to Courageous behavior (Hypothesis 4b: β = −0.130, t = −3.110). Neuroticism was significantly positively related to Cautious behavior (Hypothesis 6: β = 0.087, t = 2.961), while Honesty–Humility was positively related to Cautious behavior (Hypothesis 7: β = 0.087, t = 3.478).
The results also indicate that:
Cautious behavior was positively related to Travel intentions (Hypothesis 8a: β = 0.827, t = 25.328), Travel preferences (Hypothesis 8b: β = 0.548, t = 18.193) and Hygiene and safety (Hypothesis 8c: β = 0.547, t = 13.366). Courageous behavior was negatively related to Travel intentions (Hypothesis 9a: β = −0.248, t = −9.095) and Hygiene and safety (Hypothesis 9c: β = −0.148, t = −4.246), while the influence on Travel preferences was not significant, so Hypothesis 9b was rejected.
The modification indices in AMOS also suggested adding some new relationships that were not hypothesized before conducting the study. For instance, it was suggested that certain personality traits directly affect the changes in travel behavior influenced by coronavirus: Agreeableness and Consciousness directly positively influence Hygiene and safety; Extraversion negatively influences Travel preferences while Sensation seeking positively influences changes in Travel preferences. These relationships were tested and found to be statistically significant. The results are presented in Figure 2.

4.6. Moderation Effects

To check if the model differs between the groups of respondents who filled in the questionnaire before and after the pandemic, multi-group analyses were applied following Byrne’s [71] recommendations (Hypothesis 10). Multi-group analysis in structural equation modeling (SEM) is another form of moderation analysis but using categorical variables or grouping variables (in this case, we had two groups—before and after the pandemic). The sample was divided by the date of filling in the survey, with 11 March 2020 (the official announcement of a pandemic) being a dividing point. The multi-group analyses were then conducted to examine how path coefficients connecting each concept vary across those two groups. Moderation effects were explored by a series of chi-square difference tests between constrained and unconstrained models. The results of moderation tests revealed that the model significantly differed between the two groups, as the results showed a significant chi-square difference between constrained and unconstrained models (χ2 = 40.783, df = 17, p = 0.001). This led to the confirmation of Hypothesis 10. Paths that were shown to have different weights and significance in two samples were tested to check if there is a significant chi-square difference between constrained and unconstrained models. The results are shown in Table 8.
This suggests that the path coefficient connecting Agreeableness and Cautious behaviors, as well as Agreeableness and Courageous behavior, varied across the two groups of respondents. This means that in the sample after pandemic (which also influenced higher risk perception), Agreeableness had a significant effect on Cautious and Courageous behaviors, while this effect was not significant in the sample before the pandemic. However, the moderation test results failed to confirm the moderation effect in the case of Agreeableness, Extraversion, Consciousness and Hygiene and safety (Table 8).

5. Discussion

The main aim of the study was to contribute to our understanding of how tourist personality (Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness, Consciousness, Neuroticism, Honesty–Humility) and sensation-seeking traits affect reactions to the perceived travel risk as well as how the reactions to the perceived travel risk affect the changes in travel behavior influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also intended to explore how the hypothesized model differs in the sample that completed the questionnaire before and after the announced pandemic, to check possible moderation effects on the reactions to the perceived travel risk and the changes in travel behavior. The first research question referred to the influence of tourist personality on tourists’ reactions to travel risk perception, namely Cautious and Courageous behavior. The findings indicate that people who scored high in sensation seeking tended to show more Courageous behavior and less Cautious behavior as a reaction to travel risk perception. This is in line with the study of Lepp and Gibson [57], who showed that sensation seekers show a higher tendency to travel to the riskier parts of the world, but also with many previous studies that revealed the greater intention of sensation seekers to visit risky destinations [7,9,10].
Furthermore, more conscious individuals, as expected, showed more cautious reactions to travel risk, while less conscious travelers showed more courageous behavior. This is in line with the findings of the study of natural hazard risk perception by Kovačić et al. [12] which observed similar results. Thus, highly conscientious people will avoid traveling, even in the cases where there is a low risk to their health.
Even though Extraversion and Openness to experience were expected to have a positive influence on Courageous behavior based on previous studies that showed that extraversion and openness positively influenced the risk-taking attitude and engagement in risky activities [8,28,31,60,62], in this study these traits did not show significant influences. This may be because health risks, such as ones influenced by COVID-19, are a different type of risk compared to the risk one can perceive for risky recreational or tourist activities; thus, when it comes to high health risks such as those of the coronavirus, these personality traits did not seem to be connected with tourists’ reactions to travel risk perception, which provides a new understanding of the role of personality in the reactions to the perceived risk. Even newer studies done during the COVID-19 pandemic [28,31] have been done at a time when vaccines were available to people, which probably contributed to the sense of security and might moderate these relationships. Such a claim was confirmed in the research of Boto-García and Francisco Baños Pino [72] who revealed that vaccination against COVID-19 increased the likelihood of taking a holiday. On the other hand, the current study has been done in the initial phase of the pandemic, when no vaccines or tests were easily available to people.
Furthermore, people who scored high in Agreeableness showed more Cautious behavior while low Agreeableness was connected with Courageous behavior. This is in line with the findings of Kovačić et al. [12], which showed that agreeable persons will travel to risky destinations only if they perceive it to be a low to moderate risk (they were shown to have conscious behavior—somewhere between cautious and courageous behavior). This may also explain why the relationship between Agreeableness and Cautious/Courageous behavior was moderated by the announcement of the pandemic (which was connected with the perception of higher risk and more concern for safety). Additional analysis showed that after a pandemic is announced, people were more worried about their own and their family’s security and people showed higher scores on cautious behavior. In the case before the pandemic announcement, agreeableness did not seem to affect reactions to travel risk perceptions, while after the pandemic announcement, agreeableness had a significant influence. This might be because agreeable persons, after the announcement of the pandemic, will probably show more empathy and worry not only for themselves but also for their close social circle, which may result in more cautious behavior.
The results also indicated that individuals who scored high in Neuroticism will show more Cautious behavior. This is in line with Korstanje [64] who discussed the tight connection between anxiety and neuroticism, suggesting that more anxious and neurotic individuals will be more cautious when deciding whether to engage in risky travel. Additionally, this finding can be connected with the finding of Tepavčević et al. [28] that Neuroticism negatively affected tourists’ intention to travel.
Finally, the personality trait Honesty–Humility was positively related to Cautious behavior. Previous studies also showed that lower honesty/humility was associated with greater health/safety risk taking [61] and that individuals who score high in honesty–humility and are more worried will show more cautious behavior [12]. People with high scores on the Honesty–Humility scale avoid manipulating others for personal gain, feel little temptation to break rules and feel no special entitlement to elevated social status [73], which could explain why they show a tendency to be more cautious in times of crisis—they don’t have a need as low honesty–humility individuals to travel and enjoy luxury things to elevate their status, but they are not tempted to break rules meaning the risk may not be tempting for them, and they care about other people, not only personal gain.
The second research question was related to exploring the relationship between reactions to travel risk perception and changes in travel behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cautious behavior was positively related to the changes in Travel intentions, Travel preferences and Hygiene and safety. This means that more cautious individuals are more ready to cancel or reduce their travel plans because of the coronavirus and avoid more risky destinations (travel intentions); they will also change their preferences when traveling, opting more for options they perceive as safer such as outdoor activities, close destinations, traveling individually, staying in high-star hotels, etc. (travel preference) and will care more about hygiene and safety in all aspects of travel (transport, hotels, recreation, tourist sites, etc.). Courageous individuals will show less intention to cancel or modify their travel plans and will show less care about hygiene and safety during travel.
The model also revealed direct positive influences of Agreeableness and Consciousness on Hygiene and safety; a negative influence of Extraversion on Travel preferences and a positive influence of Sensation seeking on the changes in Travel preferences. This indicates that persons who are conscious and agreeable (empathetic and altruist people who care about others) will take more care about hygiene and safety while traveling as they tend to be more responsible towards themselves and others. Extraverts will not change their travel preferences because of coronavirus. This may be because the changes in travel preference are largely concerned with staying away from groups and other people and more individual activities, while extraverts like to travel with company, meet others and engage in group activities. Finally, sensation seekers will change their travel preferences because of the coronavirus, although this is contrary to what was expected. However, a change in travel preference might be perceived as a novelty for sensation seekers as they like to try or explore, so this might explain such a relationship. The last research question intended to explore the moderation effect of the official announcement of a coronavirus pandemic (11 March 2020) on the relationship between tourists’ personality, reactions to travel risk and changes in travel behavior. The research confirmed the moderating effect of the official announcement of a coronavirus pandemic, since in the sample after the pandemic announcement (which also influenced higher risk perception), Agreeableness had a significant positive effect on Cautious behavior and negative effect on Courageous behavior, while this effect was not significant in the sample before the pandemic. This is in line with the claim of Talwar et al. [31] who stated that individuals high on agreeableness tend to follow rules and guidelines, and will avoid non-essential travel until the recommendations change. This could explain why agreeableness did not show a significant effect in the sample before pandemic announcement. Such findings can find their application in the post-COVID period as well, as they show that people who score high in agreeableness will be willing to travel again when the governments recommend so, while on the other hand, highly neurotic individuals will be more cautious and restricted in their travel behavior regardless of government suggestions.

6. Conclusions

The main findings of the study can be summarized through important theoretical and practical implications that can be derived from this research.

6.1. Theoretical Contributions

The current research contributes to the existing theory in several ways. First, it contributes to the understanding of the relationship between tourist personality, tourists’ reactions to travel risk perception and changes in their travel behavior during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. The fact that this was the biggest pandemic in recent decades, because of huge media coverage and the fact that even doctors and governments were not sure what is the right way to deal with it, caused even more insecurity in people. Moreover, the measures were very harsh in many of the countries where the research was conducted (border closure), and this also caused more fear, concern and distrust of travel in people. The global risk of coronavirus created an atmosphere of high threat for travelers’ health, so exploring the mentioned constructs in this context has important implications for theory. The findings provided empirical evidence that tourist personality affects changes in travel behavior influenced by a coronavirus, both through their reactions to travel risks (cautious and courageous behavior) but also directly (specifically agreeableness, consciousness, extraversion, sensation seeking). Another important finding is that extraversion and openness to experiences, in specific high-risk situations such as the current pandemic in the time when no vaccines were available to people, did not influence reactions to travel risks, contrary to previous studies that proved their influence in cases of lower and moderate travel risks. In the current study, however, extraversion showed a direct influence on travel preferences, indicating that extraverts might not be ready to change their travel style if this means a more individualistic travel style and distancing from other people. Furthermore, this is the first study to confirm the linkage between reactions to travel risks (cautious and courageous) and changes in travel behavior influenced by COVID-19.
Additionally, the study has found that the announcement of the pandemic, which was related to higher worry and more cautious behavior, moderated the relationship between agreeableness and cautious/courageous behavior since this relationship did not exist the sample before the pandemic, showing that effect of agreeableness depends not only on the level of risk and worry but probably on the fact that agreeable people are more likely to follow the governmental rules and suggestions related to travel.

6.2. Practical Implications

It is clear that COVID-19 is going to have a tremendous psychological and sociological impact on the way people make travel decisions. Crosby [74] predicts that the price will be a secondary factor when making travel decisions, compared to the perception of risk. A fear of crowds and places with a lot of travelers and an immense need for movement, could result in shorter and closer trips and changed tourist behavior. It is evident that fear will diminish over time but the pandemic’s effects on travel behavior will take longer to eliminate, depending on how long the “perception of high risk” will last among travelers. This is why destination marketers have an important role in managing these perceptions, as properly shaped tourism communication could motivate consumers to travel to destinations that offer them more security and confidence, decreasing the perception of risk [74]. DMOs will struggle to attract tourist again, and knowing how tourists will change their travel habits and preferences could help them shape new marketing campaigns and adapt destination offers. For instance, marketing campaigns addressing agreeable and conscious individuals should communicate measures that were undertaken to increase all elements of hygiene and safety at the destination. Sensation seekers might be attracted by the changed style of travel and novel activities. To attract extroverts, marketers should be careful in promoting the tourist experience without entertainment and interaction. Depending on the situation, the promotion of virtual and digital interactions might be a temporary solution. Courageous individuals probably will not change their travel habits and will be easier to attract. On the contrary, marketers should place additional effort to promote high safety and security at the destination to attract cautious individuals. For cautious individuals, marketers should provide a lot of information about the current state of security at the destination, emphasizing measures undertaken to maintain the good health and safety of their guests. It seems that this was particularly recognized by accommodation facilities in the post-pandemic period, as they introduced a special certification program called “Clean and Safe”, first introduced by Turismo de Portugal, ensuring the existence of an internal protocol that defines the necessary prevention, control and surveillance procedures in accommodation facilities. Clean and Safe companies are now covered by the European Tourism COVID-19 Safety Seal and there is 22,279 stamps already issued with 42,520 people trained [75].

6.3. The Study Limitations and Future Research

Besides important theoretical and practical contributions, this study is not without limitations. The concepts such as reactions to travel risk and changes in travel behavior are based on respondents’ self-reporting, meaning that it is not certain how respondents would behave after the pandemic finishes. Thus, it would be interesting to conduct research again, in the post-crisis period, to see how the respondent’s preferences, habits and travel behaviors changed, to compare it with the current findings and to see if there are any differences and what might influence those differences in the research results. One more limitation could be convenience sampling, as a more stratified sample could deliver more precise findings, although it is not expected that the differences would be significant. In addition, the survey was conducted in four countries, three of which are in Eastern Europe and one in Western Europe. The study could benefit from including more countries from Western Europe in the survey.
Future research should also focus on exploring socio-demographic influences on the changes in travel behavior influenced by COVID-19, which could reveal market segments that will be the most hit by the crisis and the most difficult to motivate to travel again.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://0-www-mdpi-com.brum.beds.ac.uk/article/10.3390/su15031951/s1, Supplementary File—QUESTIONNAIRE.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K. and M.C.; methodology, S.K., M.C., T.N.T., Y.A.S. and B.G.H.; software, S.K.; validation, S.K., M.C., T.N.T., Y.A.S. and B.G.H.; formal analysis, S.K., M.D.P. and T.P.; investigation, S.K., M.C., T.N.T. and Y.A.S.; data curation, T.P., D.D.B. and T.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.K. and M.C.; writing—review and editing, M.D.P., I.B. and T.P.; visualization, D.D.B. and T.G.; supervision, S.K. and M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Science Fund of the Republic of Serbia, Project No. 7739076, Tourism Destination Competitiveness—evaluation model for Serbia—TOURCOMSERBIA and Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, Provincial Secretariat for Higher Education and Scientific-Research Activity, Program 0201, project number: 142-451-2615/2021-01/1.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Arbulú, I.; Razumova, M.; Rey-Maquieira, J.; Sastre, F. Measuring risks and vulnerability of tourism to the COVID-19 crisis in the context of extreme uncertainty: The case of the Balearic Islands. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 39, 100857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Wilson, M.E.; Chen, L.H. Travellers give wings to novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). J. Travel Med. 2020, 27, taaa015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Aziz, N.A.; Long, F. To travel, or not to travel? The impacts of travel constraints and perceived travel risk on travel intention among Malaysian tourists amid the COVID-19. J. Cust. Behav. 2021, 21, 352–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ruiz Estrada, M.A.; Park, D.; Lee, M. The Evaluation of the Final Impact of Wuhan COVID-19 on Trade, Tourism, Transport, and Electricity Consumption of China. SSRN Soc. Sci. Res. Netw. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Depoux, A.; Martin, S.; Karafillakis, E.; Bsd, R.P.; Wilder-Smith, A.; Larson, H. The pandemic of social media panic travels faster than the COVID-19 outbreak. J Travel Med. 2020, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Lepp, A.; Gibson, H. Tourist roles, perceived risk and international tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2003, 30, 606–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pizam, A.; Jeong, G.-H.; Reichel, A.; Van Boemmel, H.; Lusson, J.M.; Steynberg, L.; State, O.; Volo, S.; Kroesbacher, C.; Kucerova, J.; et al. The relationship between risk-taking, sensation-seeking, and the tourist behavior of young adults: A cross-cultural study. J. Travel Res. 2004, 42, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Reisinger, Y.; Mavondo, F. Travel anxiety and intentions to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk perception. J. Travel Res. 2005, 43, 212–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Fuchs, G.; Uriely, N.; Reichel, A.; Maoz, D. Vacationing in a terror-stricken destination: Tourists’ risk perceptions and rationalizations. J. Travel Res. 2013, 52, 182–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sharifpour, M.; Walters, G.; Ritchie, B.W.; Winter, C. Investigating the role of prior knowledge in tourist decision making: A structural equation model of risk perceptions and information search. J. Travel Res. 2014, 53, 307–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kapuściński, G.; Richards, B. News framing effects on destination risk perception. Tour. Manag. 2016, 57, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Kovačić, S.; Jovanović, T.; Miljković, Đ.; Lukić, T.; Marković, S.B.; Vasiljević, D.A.; Vujičić, M.D.; Ivkov, M. Are Serbian tourists worried? The effect of psychological factors on tourists’ behavior based on the perceived risk. Open Geosci. 2019, 11, 273–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Wen, Z.; Huimin, G.; Kavanaugh, R.R. The impacts of SARS on the consumer behaviour of Chinese domestic tourists. Curr. Issues Tour. 2005, 8, 22–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Arbulú, I.; Razumova, M.; Rey-Maquieira, J.; Sastre, F. Can domestic tourism relieve the COVID-19 tourist industry crisis? The case of Spain. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2021, 20, 100568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ntounis, N.; Parker, C.; Skinner, H.; Steadman, C.; Warnaby, G. Tourism and Hospitality industry resilience during the Covid-19 pandemic: Evidence from England. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 25, 46–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Duro, J.A.; Perez-Laborda, A.; Turrion-Prats, J.; Fernández-Fernández, M. COVID-19 and tourism vulnerability. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 38, 100819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Li, Z.; Zhang, X.; Yang, K.; Singer, R.; Cui, R. Urban and rural tourism under COVID-19 in China: Research on the recovery measures and tourism development. Tour. Rev. 2021, 76, 718–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fotiadis, A.; Polyzos, S.; Huan, T.C.T. The good, the bad and the ugly on COVID-19 tourism recovery. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 87, 103117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sharma, G.D.; Thomas, A.; Paul, J. Reviving tourism industry post-COVID-19: A resilience-based framework. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 37, 100786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Foo, L.P.; Chin, M.Y.; Tan, K.L.; Phuah, K.T. The impact of COVID-19 on tourism industry in Malaysia. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 2735–2739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gajić, T.; Petrović, D.M.; Blešić, I.; Radovanović, M.; Syromjatnikowa, J. The Power of Fears in the Travel Decisions: COVID-19 Against Lack of Money. J. Tour. Futures 2021, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Gajić, T.; Petrović, M.; Blešić, I.; Vukolić, D.; Milovanović, I.; Radovanović, M.; Vuković, D.; Kostić, M.; Vuksanović, N.; Malinoivć, S. COVID-19 Certificate as a Cutting-Edge Issue in Changing the Perception of Restaurants’ Visitors–Illustrations from Serbian Urban Centers. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 914484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Baltaci, F.; Kurar, I. COVID-19: Determining the changing motivations of international second home tourists in coastal Turkey. J. Geogr. Inst. “Jovan Cvijić” SASA 2022, 72, 175–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pappas, N. COVID-19: Holiday intentions during a pandemic. Tour. Manag. 2021, 84, 104287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Liu, Y.; Shi, H.; Li, Y.; Amin, A. Factors influencing Chinese residents’ post-pandemic outbound travel intentions: An extended theory of planned behavior model based on the perception of COVID-19. Tour. Rev. AIEST–Int. Assoc. Sci. Expert. Tourism. 2021, 76, 871–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gupta, V.; Cahyanto, I.; Sajnani, M.; Shah, C. Changing dynamics and travel evading: A case of Indian tourists amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Tour. Futures. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Neuburger, L.; Egger, R. Travel risk perception and travel behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: A case study of the DACH region. Curr. Issues Tour. 2021, 24, 1003–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tepavčević, J.; Blešić, I.; Petrović, M.D.; Vukosav, S.; Bradić, M.; Garača, V.; Gajić, T.; Lukić, D. Personality Traits That Affect Travel Intentions during Pandemic COVID-19: The Case Study of Serbia. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Seyfi, S.; Rastegar, R.; Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Hall, C.M. A framework for understanding media exposure and post-COVID-19 travel intentions. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2021, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ivanova, M.; Ivanov, I.K.; Ivanov, S. Travel behaviour after the pandemic: The case of Bulgaria. Anatolia 2021, 32, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Talwar, S.; Srivastava, S.; Sakashita, M.; Islam, N.; Dhir, A. Personality and travel intentions during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: An artificial neural network (ANN) approach. J. Bus. Res. 2022, 42, 400–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Yang, Y.; Zhang, C.X.; Rickly, J.M. A review of early COVID-19 research in tourism: Launching the annals of tourism research’s curated collection on coronavirus and tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 91, 103313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Perić, G.; Dramićanin, S.; Conić, M. The impact of Serbian tourists’ risk perception on their travel intentions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eur. J. Tour. Res. 2021, 27, 2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Garbe, L.; Rau, R.; Toppe, T. Influence of perceived threat of COVID-19 and HEXACO personality traits on toilet paper stockpiling. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0234232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Zettler, I.; Schild, C.; Lilleholt, L.; Kroencke, L.; Utesch, T.; Moshagen, M. The role of personality in COVID-19-related perceptions, evaluations, and behaviors: Findings across five samples, nine traits, and 17 criteria. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2022, 13, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Gratton, M.; Morin, S.; Germain, D.; Voiculescu, M.; Ianăş, A. Tourism and natural hazards in Bâlea glacial area valley, Făgăraş massif, Romanian Carpathians. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci. 2015, 10, 19–32. [Google Scholar]
  37. Cavlek, N. Tour operators and destination safety. In Tourism, Security and Safety; Mansfeld, Y., Pizam, A., Eds.; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2006; pp. 338–355. [Google Scholar]
  38. Chang, S.Y. Australians’ Holiday Decisions in China: A Study Combining Novelty-Seeking and Risk-Perception Behaviors. J. China Tour. Res. 2009, 5, 364–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mannakkara, S.; Wilkinson, S.; Willie, M.; Heather, R. Building back better in the Cook Islands: A focus on the tourism sector. Procedia Eng. 2018, 212, 824–831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Huang, X.; Dai, S.; Xu, H. Predicting tourists’ health risk preventative behaviour and travelling satisfaction in Tibet: Combining the theory of planned behaviour and health belief model. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 33, 100589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jonas, A.; Mansfeld, Y.; Paz, S.; Potasman, I. Determinants of health risk perception among low-risk-taking tourists traveling to developing countries. J. Travel Res. 2011, 50, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wong, J.Y.; Yeh, C. Tourist Hesitation in Destination Decision Making. Ann. Tour. Res. 2009, 36, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lehto, X.; Douglas, A.C.; Park, J. Mediating the effects of natural disasters on travel intention. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 23, 29–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thapa, B.; Cahyanto, I.; Holland, S.M.; Absher, J.D. Wildfires and tourist behaviors in Florida. Tour. Manag. 2013, 36, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Feridun, M. Impact of terrorism on tourism in Turkey: Empirical evidence from Turkey. Appl. Econ. 2011, 43, 3349–3354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bassil, C.; Saleh, A.S.; Anwar, S. Terrorism and tourism demand: A case study of Lebanon, Turkey and Israel. Curr. Issues Tour. 2019, 22, 50–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lutz, B.J.; Lutz, J.M. Terrorism and tourism in the Caribbean: A regional analysis. Behav. Sci. Terror. Political Aggress 2020, 12, 55–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Seabra, C.; Reis, P.; Abrantes, J.L. The influence of terrorism in tourism arrivals: A longitudinal approach in a Mediterranean country. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 80, 102811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Joo, H.; Maskery, B.A.; Berro, A.D.; Rotz, L.D.; Lee, Y.K.; Brown, C.M. Economic Impact of the 2015 MERS Outbreak on the Republic of Korea’s Tourism-Related Industries. Health Secur. 2019, 17, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lalloo, D.G.; Alan, J.M. 14–Malaria: Epidemiology and Risk to the Traveler. In Travel Medicine, 4th ed.; Keyston, J., Kozarsky, P., Connor, B., Nothdurft, H., Mendelson, M., Leder, K., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 137–144. [Google Scholar]
  51. Kang, Y. To Compensate Themselves: The Consumption Impulse in Post SARS Period. 2003. Available online: http://www.nbjd.gov.cn/ (accessed on 5 March 2020).
  52. Cai, J. Pay Attention to the Influences of SARS on the Psychological Changes of Tourists. China Tourism News. 2003. Available online: http://news.ctnews.com.cn/article/3145468 (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  53. European Committee of the Regions. 2022. Available online: https://cor.europa.eu/en/news/Pages/nat-sustainable-tourism.aspx (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  54. UNWTO. 2022. Available online: https://www.unwto.org/news/tourism-recovery-accelerates-to-reach-65-of-pre-pandemic-levels (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  55. Cohen, E. Towards a sociology of international tourism. Soc. Res. 1972, 39, 164–182. [Google Scholar]
  56. Plog, S. Why destination areas rise and fall in popularity? Cornell Hotel. Restaur. Adm Q. 1974, 42, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Lepp, A.; Gibson, H. Sensation seeking and tourism: Tourist role, perception of risk and destination choice. Tour. Manag. 2008, 29, 740–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Aschauer, W. Perceptions of tourists at risky destinations. A model of psychological influence factors. Tour. Rev. 2010, 65, 4–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Torres, E.N.; Wei, W.; Ridderstaat, J. The adventurous tourist amidst a pandemic: Effects of personality, attitudes, and affect. J. Vacat. Mark. 2021, 28, 424–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Valencia, J.; Crouch, G.I. Travel behavior in troubled times: The role of consumer self-confidence. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2008, 25, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Weller, J.A.; Tikir, A. Predicting domain-specific risk taking with the HEXACO personality structure. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 2011, 24, 180–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Lee, T.H.; Tseng, C.H. How personality and risk-taking attitude affect the behavior of adventure recreationists. Tour. Geogr. 2015, 17, 307–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. McCrae, R.R. Creativity, divergent thinking and openness to experience. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 52, 1258–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Korstanje, M. Re-visiting risk perception theory in the context of travel. e-Rev. Tour. Res. 2009, 7, 68–81. [Google Scholar]
  65. Međedović, J.; Bulut, T. The MINI IPIP-6: Short, valid, and reliable measure of the six-factor personality structure. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 10, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Hoyle, R.H.; Stephenson, M.T.; Palmgreen, P.; Lorch, E.P.; Donohew, R.L. Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2002, 32, 401–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Kline, R.B. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  68. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Huang, C.C.; Wang, Y.M.; Wu, T.W.; Wang, P.A. An empirical analysis of the antecedents and performance consequences of using the Moodle platform. Int. J. Inf. Educ. Technol. 2013, 3, 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Zait, A.; Bertea, P.E. Methods for testing discriminant validity. Manag. Mark. 2011, 9, 217–224. [Google Scholar]
  71. Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming; Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  72. Boto-García, D.; Baños Pino, F.J. Propelled: Evidence on the impact of vaccination against COVID-19 on travel propensity. Curr. Issues Tour. 2022, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ashton, M.C.; Lee, K. Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 11, 150–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Crosby. The Now and the after of the COVID-19 in Tourism. 2020. Available online: https://www.hosteltur.com/comunidad/003959_el-ahora-y-el-despues-del-covid-19-en-el-turismo.html/ (accessed on 15 April 2020).
  75. Clean and Safe Certification. Available online: https://travel4experiences.com/clean-and-safe/ (accessed on 10 January 2023).
Sustainability 15 01951 g001 550
Figure 1. The proposed model with the hypotheses.
Figure 1. The proposed model with the hypotheses.
Sustainability 15 01951 g001
Sustainability 15 01951 g002 550
Figure 2. Final structural model.
Figure 2. Final structural model.
Sustainability 15 01951 g002
Table
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics and travel habits of respondents in % (N = 905).
Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics and travel habits of respondents in % (N = 905).
Gender Marital Status
Male 53.6Single41.2
Female46.4I have a boyfriend/girlfriend27.7
I live in an extramarital union4.1
I am married without children5.3
I am married and have a child/children18.7
Divorced2.1
Widow/widower0.9
Age Frequency of Traveling
Range 18–72 I have never been abroad14.3
Average: 35.40, Std, 11.793 I have traveled abroad several times 31.8
I travel abroad once a year25.3
I travel abroad several times a year25
I travel abroad once a month3.6
Education I Usually Travel with
Elementary school1.3Family with children24.4
Secondary school 24.2Family (family members without children) 19.6
Higher school/college30.1Friends35.9
Faculty/Master’s/PhD44.4Partner12.3
Business partner2.5
Alone5.2
Country of Residence
Spain22.65
Croatia19.89
Serbia29.83
Russia27.63
Table
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and measurement model validity.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and measurement model validity.
VariableMeanStd.αAVECR
Cautious behavior (10 items)3.790.8640.8770.4110.868
Courageous behavior (6 items)2.370.9700.8230.4880.847
Travel intentions (7 items)3.251.130.9030.5420.891
Travel preferences (6 items)2.600.9040.7690.4680.813
Hygiene and safety (7 items)3.571.060.9150.6250.910
Sensation seeking (8 items)3.080.8920.8190.5570.865
Conscientiousness (4 items)3.880.7570.7500.4790.711
Extraversion (4 items)3.330.8710.7230.5280.817
Openness to experience (4 items)3.610.6990.7110.4380.770
Agreeableness (4 items)3.930.7680.7860.5020.797
Neuroticism (4 items)3.020.7940.7130.4310.699
Honesty–Humility (4 items)3.100.9430.7820.5900.852
Table
Table 3. Correlation estimates and average variances extracted (shown in italic).
Table 3. Correlation estimates and average variances extracted (shown in italic).
123456789101112
1. Cautious0.411
2. Courageous0.3400.488
3. Sensation seeking0.0170.0310.542
4. Consciousness0.0240.0150.0020.468
5. Extraversion0.0020.0010.0300.0270.625
6. Openness0.0010.0000.0310.0020.0200.557
7. Agreeableness0.0110.0150.0070.0230.0140.0260.479
8. Honesty–Humility0.0080.0000.0190.0020.0120.0010.0230.528
9. Neuroticism0.0070.0000.0010.0300.0230.0100.0050.0180.438
10. Travel intentions0.5750.3420.0130.0240.0050.0010.0050.0070.0040.502
11. Travel preferences0.2590.0850.0000.0110.0010.0010.0000.0050.0010.3700.431
12. Hygiene and safety0.2970.1720.0180.0310.0020.0000.0150.0060.0010.3260.2440.59
Table
Table 4. Pattern matrix of the proposed model (N = 905).
Table 4. Pattern matrix of the proposed model (N = 905).
Cautious
Tourist
α = 0.864		Courageous
Tourist
α = 0.970
R1. Security is the most important factor when deciding where to travel.0.627
R2. When deciding where to travel, the risk of coronavirus is not an important factor.0.555
R3. Security is the most important attribute that destinations can offer.0.581
R4. I consider the coronavirus to represent a real risk to tourism security in China0.664
R5. I consider coronavirus to represent a real risk for tourism security in the rest of the world0.607
R6. I would travel somewhere only if I’m sure it is safe from coronavirus0.697
R7. The possibility of coronavirus in China deters me from traveling there.0.722
R8. The possibility of coronavirus deters me from traveling in general0.518
R9. When I try to decide between destinations, I would choose those which do not have a high risk of coronavirus0.69
R10. If a particular destination in the world has been affected by a coronavirus, I will not travel there. 0.657
R11. I would like to travel, but negative news about coronavirus discourages me0.534
R12. Coronavirus would not affect my decision to go to China (in case I was due to travel there) 0.601
R13. Coronavirus would not affect my decision to travel to other parts of the world 0.838
R14. The negative experiences of other people with coronavirus did not affect my decision to travel 0.796
R15. Security is not so important when I evaluate the different destinations to travel to 0.58
R16. I would not let coronavirus prevent me from traveling to my final destination 0.767
Table
Table 5. Excerpt of the rotated component matrix of the proposed model (N = 905).
Table 5. Excerpt of the rotated component matrix of the proposed model (N = 905).
Travel
Intentions
α = 0.903		Travel
Preferences
α = 0.769		Hygiene and Safety
α = 0.915
I will cancel/I have cancelled all my business travels during the coronavirus period.0.817
I will cancel/I have cancelled all my leisure travels during the coronavirus period.0.814
Because of coronavirus, I believe traveling in China will be unsafe 0.617
I will greatly reduce my travel plans in the next 12 months.0.785
I will avoid traveling to crowded big cities after coronavirus. 0.712
In choosing tourist destinations, I will avoid coronavirus-affected areas.0.653
I will reduce the length of travel because of the coronavirus.0.731
Because of the coronavirus, my interest in participating in outdoor activities and eco-tourism has increased. 0.533
I prefer areas within a short distance for leisure travel because of the lower risk of coronavirus. 0.605
I will reduce the possibility of joining tour groups because of the coronavirus. 0.468
I prefer to stay in high-quality star hotels because of the lower risk of coronavirus. 0.578
I prefer traveling with family members and relatives during the coronavirus risky period. 0.755
I prefer separate dining while traveling with a tour group. 0.661
I will not take wild animals as food in the future. 0.353
I will care more about the hygiene and safety of the tourist sites because of the coronavirus. 0.829
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the public recreation sites because of the coronavirus. 0.867
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the means of transportation because of the coronavirus. 0.873
I care more about the health of the members in the tour group because of the coronavirus. 0.767
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the hotels because of the coronavirus. 0.862
I care more about the hygiene and safety of the daily necessities while traveling because of the coronavirus. 0.852
Table
Table 6. Perceived risk and concern before and after the COVID-19 pandemic was announced.
Table 6. Perceived risk and concern before and after the COVID-19 pandemic was announced.
before/after a PandemicMeanStd. Deviation
Before 11th of MarchI am concerned that I or someone from my family could be a victim of coronavirus3.4721.4711
Cautious travellers3.650.879
Courageous travellers2.510.944
After the 11th of MarchI am concerned that I or someone from my family could be a victim of coronavirus4.0471.2275
Cautious travellers4.030.783
Courageous travellers2.140.971
Table
Table 7. The results of hypothesis testing.
Table 7. The results of hypothesis testing.
HypothesisBS.E.t-Valuep-ValueResult
H1a.Sensation seeking→Courageous0.1790.0355.0710.000Supported
H1b.Sensation seeking→Cautious−0.1230.031−3.9250.000Supported
H2.Extraversion→Courageous−0.0130.031−0.4170.677Not supported
H3a.Agreeableness→Courageous−0.1170.041−2.8190.005Supported
H3b.Agreeableness→Cautious0.1040.0372.8230.005Supported
H4a.Consciousness→Cautious0.1770.0374.7350.000Supported
H4b.Consciousness→Courageous−0.1300.042−3.1100.002Supported
H5.Openness→Courageous−0.0560.038−1.4520.147Not supported
H6.Neuroticism→Cautious0.0870.0302.9610.003Supported
H7.Honesty–Humility→Cautious0.0870.0253.4780.000Supported
H8a.Cautious→Travel intentions0.8270.03325.3280.000Supported
H8b.Cautious→Travel preferences0.5480.03018.1930.000Supported
H8c.Cautious→Hygiene and safety0.5470.04113.3660.000Supported
H9a.Courageous→Travel intentions−0.2470.027−9.0950.000Supported
H9b.Courageous→Travel preferences−0.0070.033−0.2180.828Not supported
H9c.Courageous→Hygiene and safety−0.1480.035−4.2460.000Supported
Direct Effects Suggested by the ModelBS.E.t-Valuep-ValueResult
Agreeableness→Hygiene and safety0.0810.0362.2560.024Confirmed direct effects
Consciousness→Hygiene and safety0.0890.0372.4160.016Confirmed direct effects
Extraversion→Travel preferences−0.0870.027−3.2530.001Confirmed direct effects
Sensation seeking→Travel preferences0.1050.0264.0000.000Confirmed direct effects
Table
Table 8. The results of the moderation test.
Table 8. The results of the moderation test.
Tested PathsBeforeAfterUnconstrainedConstrainedDifference TestResults
Agreeableness → Courageous0.003−0.3 *72.61386.185 *13.572 *Supported
Agreeableness → Cautious−0.0410.322 *99.52772.613 *26.914 *Supported
Agreeableness → Hygiene and safety0.0750.113 *72.61372.870.256Not supported
Consciousness → Hygiene and safety0.0280.149 *72.61375.262.646Not supported
Extraversion → Hygiene and safety−0.116−0.04872.61374.161.546Not supported
* Significant at 0.01 level.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kovačić, S.; Cimbaljević, M.; Tretyakova, T.N.; Syromiatnikova, Y.A.; García Henche, B.; Petrović, M.D.; Blešić, I.; Pivac, T.; Demirović Bajrami, D.; Gajić, T. How Has COVID-19 Changed the Way We Travel? Exploring Tourist Personality, Reactions to the Perceived Risk and Change in Travel Behavior. Sustainability 2023, 15, 1951. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su15031951

AMA Style

Kovačić S, Cimbaljević M, Tretyakova TN, Syromiatnikova YA, García Henche B, Petrović MD, Blešić I, Pivac T, Demirović Bajrami D, Gajić T. How Has COVID-19 Changed the Way We Travel? Exploring Tourist Personality, Reactions to the Perceived Risk and Change in Travel Behavior. Sustainability. 2023; 15(3):1951. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su15031951

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kovačić, Sanja, Marija Cimbaljević, Tatyana N. Tretyakova, Yulia A. Syromiatnikova, Blanca García Henche, Marko D. Petrović, Ivana Blešić, Tatjana Pivac, Dunja Demirović Bajrami, and Tamara Gajić. 2023. "How Has COVID-19 Changed the Way We Travel? Exploring Tourist Personality, Reactions to the Perceived Risk and Change in Travel Behavior" Sustainability 15, no. 3: 1951. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su15031951

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop