Next Article in Journal
Metamodelling of Naturalised Groundwater Levels at a Regional Level in New Zealand
Next Article in Special Issue
Green Trust: How Consumer Demographics Moderate Environmental Commitment in Latin America
Previous Article in Journal
Housing Satisfaction: A Comparison between Post-Second World War Large Housing Estates and Post-Socialist Multifamily Residential Neighbourhoods in Slovenia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Tourist Nomads, Leisure Constraints, and Social Cohesion: A Study on International Students Living in Istanbul
 
 
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 18
10.3390/su151813391
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

Exploring the Impact of Group Tourists’ Citizenship Behavior on Engagement: The Intimacy as a Mediating Variable

by
Dan Wang
,
Ching-Cheng Shen
* and
Hsi-Lin Liu
Graduate Institute of Tourism Management, National Kaohsiung University of Hospitality and Tourism, 812301 No.1, Songhe Road, Xiaogang District, Kaohsiung City 812, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(18), 13391; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813391
Submission received: 30 July 2023 / Revised: 17 August 2023 / Accepted: 2 September 2023 / Published: 7 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Tourism—Achieving Equality in Tourism and Leisure Research)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Tourist engagement not only yields advantages for the destination but also holds significance within the realm of group travel. In this context, if tour guides are able to leverage tourist citizenship behaviors (TCB) to augment interactivity and participation, tourists can essentially transform into “tour guide assistants”. To this end, the study introduces intimacy as a mediating variable, aiming to investigate the influence of TCB on engagement levels among group tourists. The subjects were Taiwanese tourists who had engaged in outbound group tourism for more than five days within three years. A total of 436 online questionnaires were collected by convenience sampling and analyzed in LISREL and SPSS 21.0. The research results: 1. TCB significantly positively affects intimacy and engagement; 2. Intimacy is a mediating variable between TCB and engagement. 3. Different levels of TCB have significant differences in intimacy and engagement. The research results can help tour guides and travel agency operators know the characteristics of group tourists and improve the experience of group tour tourists.

1. Introduction

Group tour is a way of traveling with other strange tourists in package tours arranged by travel agencies, which usually consist of more than 15 tourists and a tour guide. Therefore, it is a challenging test for tour guides to mobilize the enthusiasm of tourists within a limited time and make them have a satisfactory experience of group tours. On group trips, tourists should be regarded as more than simple recipients of tourism products but as operational resources [1,2]. In other words, if the tour guide can well understand and utilize the characteristics of these Taiwanese tourists, then these tourists will become “tour guide assistants”. On the contrary, it will cause difficulties for tour guides.
Rasoolimanesh et al. [3] showed that tourist engagement improves tourists’ satisfaction and loyalty to destinations. The active engagement of tourists is essential to create a memorable experience, which is crucial for attracting and retaining tourists [4]. In summary, customer engagement plays a vital role in consumer behavior [5,6]. Therefore, the sense of engagement of tourists plays a crucial role in whether a trip can be successfully completed, and which factors will affect group tours is the first motivation for this study.
Traditional tourism has gradually moved towards creative tourism because of the value of co-creation behavior, that is, co-creation tourism is experienced together. In a group tour, the co-creation of tourism behavior enables tourists to change from passively visiting destinations to actively participating in destinations [7,8,9]. Tourism-valued co-creation behavior includes tourist participation behavior and tourist citizenship behavior (TCB) [10,11]. TCB is voluntary in that tourists are willing to have a better experience for the entire tour group. Tourists engaged in TCB will have positive and voluntary behaviors, and these behaviors are not mandatory for tourists in group tours but can help other tourists [12]. However, previous studies were primarily based on exploring the antecedents that affect TCB [13,14,15]. Therefore, understanding how TCB affects group tourist engagement and its impact is the second motivation of this study.
Tourist interactions will also create a sense of intimacy and increase engagement in tourism activities [16], which may lead their experience to receive social support from other tourism members. This intimate relationship and the resulting social support can promote their goal pursuit [17]. Intimacy is the feeling of closeness and emotional connection [18], which will narrow the boundaries between each other [19]. Everyone needs to pursue intimacy because it is an effective way to alleviate the uncertainty of tourists about unfamiliar environments and destinations [20,21,22]. During group tour experiences, tourists spend much time interacting; however, there needs to be more research on what role this interaction plays in a trip [23]. To sum up, the third motivation of this study was triggered.
In view of the above motivations, this research aims to integrate the above theories into a single conceptual framework and highlight the influence of the relationship between each variable in this comprehensive theoretical model. This research will propose five hypotheses in response to the purposes. The questionnaire survey method is the primary survey method, and the linear structure relationship model (LISREL) was used as an analysis tool to verify the relationship between variables. In addition, this research uses cluster analysis to divide TCBs of different levels and then uses one-way ANOVA to explore whether Taiwanese TCBs of different levels have significant differences in intimacy and engagement.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Tourist Citizenship Behavior (TCB)

Customer citizenship behavior (CCB) is “voluntary and discretionary behavior” that is unnecessary to produce or deliver services successfully. Generally, it contributes to the whole service organization [24] and is the core consumer behavior issue [25]. Customer engagement has a positive impact on loyalty [26,27], private brand contact [28,29], and corporate performance [30]. TCB is different from the research on CCB. TCB is more obviously reflected in tourists and tourism destinations because the destination is a place where tourists visit, stay, eat, interact, and feel safe [15].
TCB has four main components: advocacy, helping, feedback, and tolerance. 1. Advocacy is considered a more powerful communication tool than advertising because it generates greater trust, which saves marketing time and money and facilitates the sharing of authentic experiences [31]. 2. Helping refers to the constructive behavior of helping other tourists [10,11,24,32,33]. 3. Feedback is an essential source of insight to improve tourism destinations related to tourists [10,34]. 4. Tolerance refers to customers (tourists) who are willing to show patience and tolerance to tour guides when they do not meet the expectations of customers (tourists) for service [10,11,33,35].
TCB emphasizes the non-purchase behaviors of tourists, which include tourists during or after the service [14]. Additional role behaviors are voluntarily expressed in time, information, ideas, and physical cooperation [14,36]. The tour group members share the environment and experience in the same space and will try to integrate into the group [37] and tolerate others [38]. The group members realize that everyone’s cooperation can make the travel smooth and are willing to engage [39]. Therefore, TCB’s definition in this research is that tourists are willing to actively interact with other tourists in the group tour and volunteer to serve and accommodate other tourists. The tourists actively engage in group experience activities and support travel arrangements to facilitate the smooth progress of group tour activities.

2.2. Intimacy (Int)

Intimacy exists in the relationship between people. Foster [40] put forward the concept of a short-lived society, describing that cruise passengers interact informally, equally, and cordially in a limited public environment to form a quality collective experience [41]. In such a collective experience, an intimate relationship blurs the boundary between self and intimate partner [19]. In other words, intimacy is usually accompanied by a psychological connection, which makes it possible for individuals and other people in the group to maintain common emotional and physical ties [42]. Human beings are born with various intimate behaviors of making friends, falling in love, and cultivating family affection [20]. This shows everyone needs to pursue intimacy. However, there is almost no trace of tourists’ intimacy or interactivity in the 13,215 research articles on the Web of Science on a travel agency. Hence, combining intimacy with TCB theory for exploration is a leap forward that can fill the research blind spot.
Tolstedt and Stokes [18] defined intimacy as feelings of closeness and emotional connection, including strong affection, moral support, and tolerance of significant defects [43]. Stern [44] believed intimacy includes emotion, cognition, and behavior. The individual is willing to expose the inner world to another person and deeply cares about another person. Self-disclosure is essential to interpersonal communication and plays a pivotal role in establishing and maintaining relationships [45]. Trauer and Ryan [46] believed that intimacy is a potentially profound emotion that requires sustained engagement and commitment to be recognized by others. From the above concepts, this research finds that the influencing factors of intimacy will be affected by the potential deep emotions generated by the continuous communication, interaction, and self-exposure between people in the same organizational activities. Therefore, this research defines intimacy as the connection between closeness and emotion generated through interaction when tourists travel in groups.
Lin, Zhang, Gursoy, and Fu [16] believed that intimacy is based on the interaction between tourists, and the self-disclosure of long-term relationship development will positively affect intimacy. Tour members will try to share their environment and experience [37] and try to accommodate others [38]. In addition, when group members engage in a shared sense of identity, it is also a reflection and formation process of intimacy. Based on the above analysis, this research speculates that the positive interaction between tourists in a group tour will positively impact their intimacy and emotional connection. Therefore, this research proposes the following hypothesis:
H1. 
TCB has a positive and significant impact on intimacy.

2.3. Engagement (Eng)

In marketing studies, customer engagement has become a core topic to deepen the cooperative creation behavior of consumers in complex environments [25,47]. Tourist engagement comprises a proactive relationship between a tourist and an object or a place [48]. Hollebeek [49] believed that engagement is a multidimensional structure, including emotional, cognitive, and behavioral elements. Tourists’ engagement is the emotion and cognition of engaging in all relevant experience activities in the tourism destination, which includes the concentration and concentration of tourists’ activity engagement when they are at the destination [16,27,50]. Previous studies measured tourists’ engagement by two dimensions: interaction and participation [14]. Therefore, engagement is defined in this research as that group tourists actively integrate into the interaction of tourists and engage in tourism activities.
The tourist engagement examined in prior research pertains to individual or self-guided tourism experiences. Only a limited portion of research has focused on investigating the factors influencing tourists’ proactive involvement in group travel. This distinction represents a significant divergence between this study and other research endeavors within the engagement domain. Furthermore, most of the previous studies [51,52] have primarily concentrated on confirming the advantages of engagement for destinations or tourists and put it more in the position of the mediating variable [53,54,55]. In doing so, they have frequently overlooked the factors that might influence tourist engagement, particularly within the context of group travel. Consequently, this study adopts an alternative approach by engagement as a dependent variable, allowing for an exploration of its principal influencing factors.
The interaction between customers and service providers can impact customer experience significantly. The higher the engagement and interaction, the better the sense of experience [56]. TCB will increase the interaction among tour members [1]. Tourism-related research shows that engagement will affect the brand and tourism experience of the destination, and tourist engagement will positively affect loyalty [27,57]. Huang and Hsu’s [41] research showed that cruise passengers stimulate a sense of belonging through informal, equal, and friendly interaction and help form the group’s centripetal force. Interaction is the basis for tourists’ engagement, value sharing, and exchanging of ideas and feelings about the experience with other tourists [14]. Sharpe [58] proposed that tourists integrate spontaneous tourism communities through collective activities and sharing experiences to experience equality, familiar spirit, and group perception during a group tour.
Based on the above literature review, this research speculates if tourists on group tours are willing to interact with other tourists and agree with the itinerary of group experience activities and services for other tourists. Therefore, they will not only actively integrate into the interaction of tourists and actively engage in tourism activities but also drive the enthusiasm and initiative of other tourists in the group. Another important finding of the literature review is that previous studies were primarily based on exploring the antecedents that affect TCB [13,14,15]. There is little research on the role of TCB in group tours when it is an antecedent variable. This gap limits TCB’s academic understanding and practical operation. Therefore, this research proposes the following hypothesis:
H2. 
TCB has a positive and significant impact on engagement.
Intimate relationships are generally accompanied by psychological and physical connections with close people, resulting in common emotions and emotions among individuals [42], which will lead to higher cooperation between close people [59] and mutual preference [60]. Intimacy can strengthen tourism citizenship behavior, leading to more active and voluntary engagement [14]. A group tour is also a social interaction, such as intimate communication between members on various issues or topics. At the same time, it also brings various social benefits, such as family and social capital, including self-esteem and positive tourism behavior [61]. A group tour provides an opportunity to develop close relationships with other group members because the co-creation process of sharing experiences requires group members to engage in various activities [62]. Islam and Rahman [5] mentioned that interaction between customers can encourage them to continue engaging in activities and actively engage in the community. Therefore, when group members feel close, they are more likely to immerse themselves in the experience environment and engage in on-site tourism activities [16]. Based on the above discussion, this research proposes the following hypothesis:
H3. 
Intimacy has a positive and significant impact on engagement.
Previous studies have explored the role of self-disclosure in long-term relationships, especially the impact of self-disclosure on liking and intimacy [63,64]. As mentioned above, self-expression as a way of establishing interpersonal communication is one factor that affects intimacy. Although it can be inferred from the previous literature that if tourists strongly desire self-expression in group interaction, it will further affect intimacy.
Levine and Moreland [65] believed that with the increase in team members’ interaction, members’ commitment and identity to the team would also increase. If group members interact more, they will increase their commitment and identification with the group [41]. The degree of this individual involvement depends on the strength of their identification with the team [66]. In other words, the engagement level of group tourists depends on the previous interaction level of tourists. Tourists who voluntarily benefit from TCB are also considered more likely to engage again in the destination [15,67]. However, the difference in the impact of different levels of TCB on engagement has yet to be verified. This study differs from previous studies in that it verifies the degree of influence of different TCBs on intimacy and engagement. Therefore, this research proposes the following hypotheses:
H4. 
Different levels of TCB have positive and significant differences in intimacy.
H5. 
Different levels of TCB have a positive and significant difference in engagement.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Questionnaire Design

In this research, the questionnaire survey method is the primary survey method. The “back translation” method was used to translate the language of the questionnaire into Chinese and then back-translate from Chinese to English. Three English major teachers were invited to assist in this process. The questionnaire for this research consists of four parts, tourist citizenship behavior, intimacy, engagement, and demographic variables. Demographic variables include six categories, such as gender, marital status, education, occupation, place of residence, and marital status. Except for demographic variables measured on category scales, the remaining variables were measured on the Likert seven-point scale, ranging from 1 = extremely disagree to 7 = extremely agree.

3.2. Data Collection

The subjects of this research were Taiwanese tourists who had engaged in an outbound group tour for more than five days within three years as the research object. The questionnaire was made through the Surveycake platform and distributed to respondents of different ages, jobs, and living in other regions using Line and Facebook groups. The links are distributed in the morning, mid-day, evening, and midnight; each link can only be answered once by the participants.
In the questionnaire design, we will first set a question “whether you participated in an outbound group tour for more than five days within three years”. The respondents can enter the questionnaire only when they choose “YES”. In addition, in consideration of academic ethics, at the outset of the questionnaire, we include a query asking respondents if they qualify as Taiwanese tourists aged 20 and above. Furthermore, participants will be informed about the objectives of their involvement and the intended use of the survey data. Following the completion of this verification process, participants can proceed to fill out and respond to the questionnaire.
This research used a convenience sampling method from 15 December 2020 to 15 February 2021. A total of 512 online questionnaires were distributed, and 436 valid questionnaires were reserved, indicating an effective response rate of 85.16%.

3.3. Data Analysis

For the data collected in the questionnaire, descriptive statistical analysis of the basic data cognition of tourists is used. Item analysis is used to verify each question item to understand the discrimination and homogeneity of each question item. The linear structure relationship model (LISREL) is used to verify the constructed linear structure model and the impact relationship between the variables of the proposed hypotheses. Cluster analysis is used to classify samples based on distance and divide different groups. One-way ANOVA is used to determine whether there were significant differences in intimacy and engagement among different groups.

4. Analysis of Results

4.1. Demographic Statistics

The results of the demographic characteristics of respondents showed that “male” and “female” accounted for 56.4% and 43.6%, respectively. Marital status was dominated by “unmarried”, accounting for 28.4%, and” married”, accounting for 64.4%. Education level was dominated by “university”, accounting for 56.9%, followed by “research institute (including) or above”, accounting for 30.7%. Average monthly income “33,001–43,000 NT (1084–1412 USD)” was the largest, accounting for 18.6%; followed by “43,001–53,000 NT (1412–1740 USD)” accounting for 18.3%. Occupations with “service” were the largest, accounting for 39.2%, followed by “freelance”, accounting for 21.1%. “The southern region” was the majority, accounting for 62.6%, followed by the “northern region”, accounting for 31.2%.

4.2. Item Analysis

The primary purpose of this research is to measure the difference between the subjects in each topic comparison or homogeneity test, to test whether the topics can identify the degree of response of different subjects. The correlation between the revised question and item-to-total must be more than 0.3. The CR value reached a significant level (p < 0.05). Therefore, a total of nine questions were reserved in this research, as shown in Table 1.

4.3. Linear Structure Relation Analysis

The potential independent variables in this research are TCB, intimacy, and engagement. Through LISREL analysis, the error variance is positive, and the estimated value reaches a significant level, showing that the mode estimation results meet the standards (Table 2). The model fitting indexes of confirmatory factor analysis results also meet the minimum requirements (χ2 = 37.38, df = 14, p < 0.001, χ2/df = 2.67, GFI = 0.98, AGFI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.062, CFI = 1.00, NFI = 0.99, NNFI = 0.99).
The indices mentioned above were within an acceptable range, indicating that the overall goodness of fit of the model was good [68]. These results showed that the model fit well with the data, as shown in Figure 1.
The factor loading coefficient of each construct was above 0.7 (more than 0.5). Assessing each item’s factor loading determines item reliability. The minimum Cronbach’s value of the three dimensions was 0.9, higher than the critical value of 0.7 [69].
The average variance extracted (AVE) opening number values for each concept should be higher than their correlation with other concepts. The square roots of AVE for each concept are more meaningful and important than the correlation coefficient with different concepts. This suggests that there is acceptable discriminant validity, indicating that the concepts are distinct from each other and not highly related. The information is presented in Table 3 of the research.

4.4. Hypotheses Test

Based on the results of the analysis in Figure 1, the verification of the research hypotheses is shown in Table 4. All hypotheses are accepted.

4.5. Cluster Analysis and One-Way ANOVA

This research takes various factors of TCB as a variable and uses K-mean for cluster analysis. The outcome of this clustering analysis is presented in Table 5. The data have been divided into three clusters based on the average values of TCB, namely high (H), middle, (M), and low (L) clusters.
One-way ANOVA was conducted to understand whether there were significant differences in intimacy and engagement among the three groups (Table 6). The high TCB group is higher in terms of intimacy and engagement than the middle TCB group, and so on; the middle TCB group is higher than the low TCB group. The results showed that groups with high TCB had high intimacy and engagement; conversely, groups with low TCB had low intimacy and engagement.
Based on the results of the analysis, the verification of the research assumptions is shown in Table 6. All hypotheses are accepted. This result indicates that different levels of TCB (H, M, L) have different effects on the intimacy and engagement of group tourists.

5. Discussion

Table 4 shows that the five hypotheses of this research are valid. In group tours, TCB will positively and significantly affect intimacy and engagement (H1, H2), which has the same conclusion as previous studies [16,46]. Intimacy among tourists also significantly affects engagement (H3), which is consistent with the findings of Minnaert, Maitland, and Miller [61] and Shafiee, Tabaeeian, and Khoshfetrat [14]. That is, if there is intimate communication and interaction among group members, they will show positive engagement. This research divides TCB into high, medium, and low (H, M, L) levels through cluster analysis. After that, ANOVA discussed whether three TCBs of different degrees would affect intimacy and engagement differently.
From Table 5 and Table 6, this research found that varying levels of TCB had different effects on intimacy and engagement; that is, H4 and H5 were established. The results are similar to Torres-Moraga, Rodriguez-Sanchez, and Sancho-Esper [15] and Huang and Hsu [41] that the higher the interaction, inclusiveness, and initiative between group tourists, the higher the intimacy and engagement between them; on the contrary, the lower the impact.
According to the path coefficient in Figure 1, two paths affect the engagement of group tourists. The first path is the impact of TCB on engagement (0.50). The second path is the influence of TCB on engagement through INT (0.22); that is, INT is the mediating variable between TCB and engagement.
From Figure 1 and Table 2, the coefficients of the four reflective indicators of TCB from high to low are TCB1 (0.93), TCB2 (0.92), TCB4 (0.87), and TCB3 (0.72), respectively. The influence coefficients of TCB1 and TCB2 are the highest, which indicates that TCB is reflected in promoting communication and management of group tours, bringing harmony and joy to tourism. The coefficients of the four reactive indicators of ENG from high to low are ENG4 (0.98), ENG2 (0.92), ENG3 (0.89), and ENG1 (0.85). Among them, ENG4 and ENG2 have the highest impact coefficient, which indicates that engagement is mainly reflected in the happy interaction with tourists in group activities and the quick passing of time.

6. Implications

6.1. Theoretical Implications

This study has the following three theoretical implications: 1. The theoretical contributions. 2. Verify the relationship between variables and mediating variables. 3. Distinguish TCBs at different levels. Their details are as follows:

6.1.1. The Theoretical Contributions

This research has a significant theoretical contribution to how TCB affects engagement. From the perspective of tour group tourists, this research understands the antecedent connotation and indicators that affect tourist engagement from TCB and intimacy, which breaks the previous application of TCB as a dependent variable in tourism research. Furthermore, the advancement in engagement within this study is also manifested in the subsequent aspects: 1. Investigating the impact of various factors on engagement by employing it as a dependent variable, a departure from prior research that primarily addressed its significance. 2. This study serves as a complementary addition to the existing engagement research in group tourism, diverging from earlier studies that concentrated on individual-centered tourism experiences. Therefore, this research has made academic contributions to the understanding and application of engagement and TCB theory.

6.1.2. Verify the Relationship between Variables and Mediating Variables

When TCB and intimacy are integrated into a model, it provides a reasonable explanation for how TCB affects engagement through intimacy, which verifies the establishment of this comprehensive model and affirms the theoretical contribution of intimacy as a mediating variable. In summary, this research confirmed the influence of TCB on engagement and determined the mediating effect of intimacy, which undoubtedly complements the gap in research of related theories.

6.1.3. Distinguish TCB at Different Levels

Cluster analysis divides TCB into three groups, and ANOVA analysis explores whether there are differences between different groups of TCB on intimacy and engagement. This study categorizes TCB into distinct levels, departing from earlier research that treated TCB as a singular entity. The above findings provide a solid theoretical basis for this research to propose practical implications.

6.2. Managerial Implications

This study discusses managerial implications in three parts: 1. Assist tourists to improve citizenship behavior. 2. Increase the opportunity for tourists to build intimacy. 3. Increase the engagement of different levels of tourists. Their details are as follows:

6.2.1. Assist Tourists to Improve Citizenship Behavior

According to the above results, the higher the engagement in TCB, the higher the degree of intimacy and engagement of tour members. This also indicates that as TCB increases, tourists become more inclined to jointly create, share, and participate in activities. Therefore, in addition to the fixed viewing of scenic spots, considering that human beings are essentially social [70], the most important thing is to create opportunities for tourists’ interaction, such as team game links or self-introduction. Provide tourists with opportunities to communicate with other tourists [16]. Interaction and communication are contacts for further contact, and providing tourists with opportunities for interaction is also the responsibility of tourism service providers or operators.
Based on cluster analysis and one-way ANOVA, this study found that the higher the TCB, the higher intimacy and engagement. Conversely, the lower the TCB, the lower the intimacy and engagement. Therefore, it is suggested that operators or tour guides can conduct communication and management for group tourists with different travel behaviors according to the group guests’ personalities and enthusiasm.

6.2.2. Increase the Opportunity for Tourists to Build Intimacy

Intimacy is the mediating effect of tourists’ engagement. Therefore, increasing the tourism experience is the premise of increasing interaction between people [16] and the only way to strengthen the intimacy between tourists with groups and tourists with tourist destinations. Travel agency operators must analyze and understand the basic information of the group members before the trip. For example, prepare some psychological testing games for the group guests at the beginning of the journey. To help the tour guides and travel agency operators better understand the personality of the group guests and design targeted activities and team-building methods according to their characteristics and preferences. Operators should also be aware that enhancing the fun and interaction of tourism products and activities is the characteristic and attribute of the tourism experience. Through these methods, the intimacy between tourists can be brought closer, thereby increasing the engagement of tourists.

6.2.3. Increase the Engagement of Different Levels of Tourists

Shafiee, Tabaeeian, and Khoshfetrat [14] mentioned that interaction and engagement are two factors that affect engagement. From an interaction perspective, this research suggests that tour guides can seek appropriate opportunities to “show weakness” to tourists in group services and to seek help from tourists within the group. For example, when tourists encounter difficulties and ask the tour guide for help, the tour guide can transfer the problem to the team and seek assistance from other tourists, creating interactivity among tourists. From the perspective of engagement, it is suggested that tour guides set some meaningful goals and complete them in groups or teams so that each tourist can feel “a sense of engagement”.
Education also is a fundamental way. Therefore, the tourists with high TCB should be taken as an example to let the low and middle group tourists imitate and learn. The appeal and education internally mobilize the positive interaction behavior between low and middle group customers.

7. Limitations and Future Suggestions

First, this paper only discusses the degree of intimacy and engagement of tourism behavior and does not explore what factors lead to the different degrees of tourism citizenship behavior. Therefore, this research suggested that future researchers can use qualitative research to analyze tourism citizenship behavior. Second, the object of this research is Taiwanese, which does not represent the characteristics and behaviors of tourists from other regions. Therefore, this research suggests that future scholars can explore tourists in different areas. Third, this research only discusses outbound tourists and does not discuss them separately according to the tourist destination region. It is suggested that future researchers can do differentiated research on outbound destinations, such as exploring the effects of different areas such as Asia, Africa, Oceania, America, or Europe. Finally, this research did not take COVID-19 as an influencing factor. Future research can use the epidemic as an influencing factor to explore tourists’ travel behavior when engaging in a group tour.

8. Conclusions

This study represents the first attempt to delve into the antecedents of engagement among group tourists, focusing on the elements of TCB and intimacy. Notably, this breaks away from the prior convention of treating TCB merely as a dependent variable in tourism research. Apart from establishing the positive impact relationship between TCB, intimacy, and engagement, this research also identifies intimacy as a mediating variable influencing TCB and engagement.
Furthermore, the outcomes of this study offer valuable insights into how Taiwanese group tourists, characterized by varying degrees of TCB, can enhance their engagement levels through intimacy. This knowledge not only benefits tour guides and travel agency operators but also aids in comprehending the diverse attributes of group tourists. Ultimately, the findings contribute to the enhancement of the overall group tour experience in Taiwan.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.W. and C.-C.S.; data curation, C.-C.S.; formal analysis, D.W.; writing of original draft, D.W.; reviewing and editing, D.W. and C.-C.S.; supervision, H.-L.L. and C.-C.S.; resources, C.-C.S.; funding acquisition, C.-C.S. 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.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Sustainability 15 13391 g0a1
Figure A1. Your relationship with the others [60].
Figure A1. Your relationship with the others [60].
Sustainability 15 13391 g0a1

References

  1. Liu, J.S.; Tsaur, S.-H. We are in the same boat: Tourist citizenship behaviors. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Teng, H.-Y.; Tsai, C.-H. Can tour leader likability enhance tourist value co-creation behaviors? The role of attachment. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2020, 45, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rasoolimanesh, S.M.; Md Noor, S.; Schuberth, F.; Jaafar, M. Investigating the effects of tourist engagement on satisfaction and loyalty. Serv. Ind. J. 2019, 39, 559–574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Su, L.; Huang, F. A study on the relationships of service fairness, consumption emotions and tourist loyalty: A case study of rural tourists. Geogr. Res. 2011, 30, 463–476. [Google Scholar]
  5. Islam, J.U.; Rahman, Z. The impact of online brand community characteristics on customer engagement: An application of Stimulus-Organism-Response paradigm. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 96–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Moliner, M.Á.; Monferrer-Tirado, D.; Estrada-Guillén, M. Consequences of customer engagement and customer self-brand connection. J. Serv. Mark. 2018, 32, 387–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Campos, A.C.; Mendes, J.; Valle, P.O.d.; Scott, N. Co-creation of tourist experiences: A literature review. Curr. Issues Tour. 2018, 21, 369–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pera, R. Empowering the new traveller: Storytelling as a co-creative behaviour in tourism. Curr. Issues Tour. 2017, 20, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Richards, G. Creativity and tourism: The State of the Art. Ann. Tour. Res. 2011, 38, 1225–1253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xie, J.; Tkaczynski, A.; Prebensen, N.K. Human value co-creation behavior in tourism: Insight from an Australian whale watching experience. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Xu, F.; Tan, J.; Lu, L.; Li, S.; Qin, L. How Does Value Co-Creation Behavior Affect Destination Loyalty? A Role Switching Perspective. J. Theor. Appl. Electron. Commer. Res. 2021, 16, 1805–1826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, L.; Cui, T.; Wu, J.; Cao, R.; Ye, Y. Encouraging tourist citizenship behavior through resource uniqueness and service quality: The mediating role of emotions. J. Vacat. Mark. 2021, 27, 45–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Al Halbusi, H.; Jimenez Estevez, P.; Eleen, T.; Ramayah, T.; Hossain Uzir, M.U. The roles of the physical environment, social servicescape, co-created value, and customer satisfaction in determining tourists’ citizenship behavior: Malaysian cultural and creative industries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shafiee, M.M.; Tabaeeian, R.A.; Khoshfetrat, A. Tourist engagement and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of relationship quality in the hotel industry. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2020, 20, 481–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Torres-Moraga, E.; Rodriguez-Sanchez, C.; Sancho-Esper, F. Understanding tourist citizenship behavior at the destination level. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 49, 592–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lin, H.; Zhang, M.; Gursoy, D.; Fu, X. Impact of tourist-to-tourist interaction on tourism experience: The mediating role of cohesion and intimacy. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 76, 153–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Uchino, B.N. Social support and health: A review of physiological processes potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. J. Behav. Med. 2006, 29, 377–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tolstedt, B.E.; Stokes, J.P. Relation of Verbal, Affective, and Physical Intimacy to Marital Satisfaction. J. Couns. Psychol. 1983, 30, 573–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Goldstein, N.J.; Cialdini, R.B. The spyglass self: A model of vicarious self-perception. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 92, 402–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Dahms, A.M. Emotional Intimacy; Overlooked Requirement for Survival; Pruett Publishing Company: Boulder, CO, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hogg, M.A.; Sherman, D.K.; Dierselhuis, J.; Maitner, A.T.; Moffitt, G. Uncertainty, entitativity, and group identification. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2007, 43, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Qiao, G.; Xu, J.; Ding, L.; Chen, Q. The impact of volunteer interaction on the tourism experience of people with visual impairment based on a mixed approach. Curr. Issues Tour. 2023, 26, 2794–2811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Torres, E.N. Guest interactions and the formation of memorable experiences: An ethnography. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2016, 28, 2132–2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Groth, M. Customers as good soldiers: Examining citizenship behaviors in internet service deliveries. J. Manag. 2005, 31, 7–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Romero, J. Customer engagement behaviors in hospitality: Customer-based antecedents. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2017, 26, 565–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ong, C.H.; Lee, H.W.; Ramayah, T. Impact of brand experience on loyalty. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2018, 27, 755–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. So, K.K.F.; King, C.; Sparks, B.A.; Wang, Y. The role of customer engagement in building consumer loyalty to tourism brands. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 64–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Brodie, R.J.; Hollebeek, L.D.; Jurić, B.; Ilić, A. Customer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications for research. J. Serv. Res. 2011, 14, 252–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Singh, S.; Sonnenburg, S. Brand performances in social media. J. Interact. Mark. 2012, 26, 189–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kumar, V.; Pansari, A. Competitive advantage through engagement. J. Mark. Res. 2016, 53, 497–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sarioglu, C.I. Customer Citizenship Behavior: Scale Development and Validation. Manag. Mark. J. 2020, 18, 57–72. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hwang, J.; Lyu, S.O. Relationships among green image, consumer attitudes, desire, and customer citizenship behavior in the airline industry. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2020, 14, 437–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yi, Y.; Gong, T. Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1279–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Revilla-Camacho, M.Á.; Vega-Vázquez, M.; Cossío-Silva, F.J. Customer participation and citizenship behavior effects on turnover intention. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1607–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Claycomb, V.; Inks, L.W. From recipient to contributor: Examining customer roles and experienced outcomes. Eur. J. Mark. 2000, 34, 359–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Echchakoui, S. Relationship between sales force reputation and customer behavior: Role of experiential value added by sales force. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 54–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Neumann, M. Living on tortoise time: Alternative travel as the pursuit of lifestyle. Symb. Interact. 1993, 16, 201–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Schuchat, M.G. Comforts of group tours. Ann. Tour. Res. 1983, 10, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Quiroga, I. Characteristics of package tours in Europe. Ann. Tour. Res. 1990, 17, 185–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Foster, G.M. South seas cruise a case study of a short-lived society. Ann. Tour. Res. 1986, 13, 215–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Huang, J.; Hsu, C.H. The impact of customer-to-customer interaction on cruise experience and vacation satisfaction. J. Travel Res. 2010, 49, 79–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cwir, D.; Carr, P.B.; Walton, G.M.; Spencer, S.J. Your heart makes my heart move: Cues of social connectedness cause shared emotions and physiological states among strangers. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2011, 47, 661–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lee, Y.; Kwon, O. Intimacy, familiarity and continuance intention: An extended expectation–confirmation model in web-based services. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2011, 10, 342–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Stern, B.B. Advertising intimacy: Relationship marketing and the services consumer. J. Advert. 1997, 26, 7–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Altman, I.; Taylor, D.A. Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships; Holt, Rinehart & Winston: Austin, TX, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
  46. Trauer, B.; Ryan, C. Destination image, romance and place experience—An application of intimacy theory in tourism. Tour. Manag. 2005, 26, 481–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. McDonald, H.; Biscaia, R.; Yoshida, M.; Conduit, J.; Doyle, J.P. Customer Engagement in Sport: An Updated Review and Research Agenda. J. Sport Manag. 2022, 36, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Loureiro, S.M.C.; Sarmento, E.M. Place attachment and tourist engagement of major visitor attractions in Lisbon. Tour. Hosp. Res. 2019, 19, 368–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hollebeek, L.D. Demystifying customer brand engagement: Exploring the loyalty nexus. J. Mark. Manag. 2011, 27, 785–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Taheri, B.; Jafari, A.; O’Gorman, K. Keeping your audience: Presenting a visitor engagement scale. Tour. Manag. 2014, 42, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Camilleri, M.A.; Kozak, M. Interactive engagement through travel and tourism social media groups: A social facilitation theory perspective. Technol. Soc. 2022, 71, 102098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kankhuni, Z.; Ngwira, C. Overland tourists’ natural soundscape perceptions: Influences on experience, satisfaction, and electronic word-of-mouth. Tour. Recreat. Res. 2022, 47, 591–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abbasi, A.Z.; Tsiotsou, R.H.; Hussain, K.; Rather, R.A.; Ting, D.H. Investigating the impact of social media images’ value, consumer engagement, and involvement on eWOM of a tourism destination: A transmittal mediation approach. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2023, 71, 103231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fan, Y.; Luo, J.M. Impact of generativity on museum visitors’ engagement, experience, and psychological well-being. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2022, 42, 100958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Shoukat, M.H.; Ramkissoon, H. Customer delight, engagement, experience, value co-creation, place identity, and revisit intention: A new conceptual framework. J. Hosp. Mark. Manag. 2022, 31, 757–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Etgar, M. A descriptive model of the consumer co-production process. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2008, 36, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Zhou, M.; Yu, H. Exploring How Tourist Engagement Affects Destination Loyalty: The Intermediary Role of Value and Satisfaction. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sharpe, E.K. Delivering communitas: Wilderness adventure and the making of community. J. Leis. Res. 2005, 37, 255–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Batson, C.D.; Chang, J.; Orr, R.; Rowland, J. Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2002, 28, 1656–1666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Aron, E.N.; Tudor, M.; Nelson, G. Close relationships as including other in the self. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1991, 60, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Minnaert, L.; Maitland, R.; Miller, G. Tourism and social policy: The value of social tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2009, 36, 316–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yarnal, C.M.; Kerstetter, D. Casting off: An exploration of cruise ship space, group tour behavior, and social interaction. J. Travel Res. 2005, 43, 368–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Laurenceau, J.-P.; Barrett, L.F.; Pietromonaco, P.R. Intimacy as an interpersonal process: The importance of self-disclosure, partner disclosure, and perceived partner responsiveness in interpersonal exchanges. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 1238–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Li, W.; Chen, S.; Sun, L.; Yang, C. What makes virtual intimacy...intimate? Understanding the Phenomenon and Practice of Computer-Mediated Paid Companionship. Proc. ACM Hum. -Comput. Interact. 2023, 7, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Levine, J.M.; Moreland, R.L. Progress in small group research. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1990, 41, 585–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Terry, D.J.; Hogg, M.A. Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship: A role for group identification. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1996, 22, 776–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Yao, Y.; Wang, G.; Ren, L.; Qiu, H. Exploring tourist citizenship behavior in wellness tourism destinations: The role of recovery perception and psychological ownership. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 55, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bentler, P.; Bonett, D.G. Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wetzels, M.; Odekerken-Schröder, G.; Van Oppen, C. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q. 2009, 33, 177–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Abelson, R.P. Are attitudes necessary. Attitudes, Conflict, and Social Change; Academic Press: London, UK, 1972; Volume 19, p. 32. [Google Scholar]
Sustainability 15 13391 g001
Figure 1. Path coefficients of structural mode (Note: *** p < 0.001).
Figure 1. Path coefficients of structural mode (Note: *** p < 0.001).
Sustainability 15 13391 g001
Table 1. Reliability and validity of the constructs.
Table 1. Reliability and validity of the constructs.
ConstructVariablesMeanSDCRItem-to-Total CorrelationsCronbach’s αReferences
TCBTCB1 Facilitating communication and management to bring harmony and conviviality to the tour5.471.1122.940.800.95[1]
TCB2 Displaying benevolent acts toward fellow tour members5.930.9220.500.740.95
TCB3 Encourage and give back to tourism service providers5.730.8719.700.690.95
TCB4 Support and cooperate with the management of tourism service providers5.671.2421.040.730.95
INTINT1 Intimacy
Please select one pair of circles presented below that best describes your relationship with the others (Shown in Appendix A)		4.361.4216.280.600.96[16,60]
ENGENG1 Actively participate in group tour activities5.960.9826.750.790.95[27]
ENG2 When participating in tourism activities, I think time passes very quickly6.040.9421.400.740.95
ENG3 Actively immerse in group tour interaction5.821.0425.740.800.95
ENG4 I am very happy with the close interaction of the league members6.030.9524.510.800.95
Table 2. Goodness of fit index and modification index.
Table 2. Goodness of fit index and modification index.
LinksFLtSMCStandardized ResidualsCronbach’s αCRAVE
TCB→TCB10.9325.010.870.130.900.920.75
TCB→TCB20.9220.870.840.16
TCB→TCB30.7217.060.520.48
TCB→TCB40.8722.380.760.24
INT→INT11.00-1.000-1.001.00
ENG→ENG10.85-0.700.310.930.950.82
ENG→ENG20.9226.930.850.15
ENG→ENG30.8933.970.770.23
ENG→ENG40.9824.710.960.04
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the constructs.
Table 3. Discriminant validity of the constructs.
TCBINTENG
TCB0.86
INT0.571.00
ENG0.680.540.91
Table 4. Tested result of hypotheses.
Table 4. Tested result of hypotheses.
Hypothesesβ Coefficientt ValuepResult
H10.6013.76 ***0.000Acceptance
H20.509.30 ***0.000Acceptance
H30.377.50 ***0.000Acceptance
Note: *** p < 0.001.
Table 5. Cluster analysis.
Table 5. Cluster analysis.
H
(N = 163)		M
(N = 206)		L
(N = 63)		FpScheffe
TCB16.425.223.91336.990.000H > M > L
TCB26.605.854.53267.800.000H > M > L
TCB36.445.464.83181.420.000H > M > L
TCB46.665.593.50550.650.000H > M > L
Note: H (high TCB group), M (middle TCB group), L (low TCB group).
Table 6. One-way ANOVA.
Table 6. One-way ANOVA.
NMeanSDFpScheffe
INT11. H1635.13501.2775.850.000H > M > L
2. M2064.19421.24
3. L673.00001.04
ENG11. H1636.58280.6399.990.000H > M > L
2. M2065.78160.88
3. L675.00000.98
ENG21. H1636.55210.7262.700.000H > M > L
2. M2065.88830.85
3. L675.28361.00
ENG31. H1636.50310.6798.390.000H > M > L
2. M2065.57770.95
3. L674.88060.99
ENG41. H1636.60740.5893.410.000H > M > L
2. M2065.88350.88
3. L675.08960.97
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

Wang, D.; Shen, C.-C.; Liu, H.-L. Exploring the Impact of Group Tourists’ Citizenship Behavior on Engagement: The Intimacy as a Mediating Variable. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813391

AMA Style

Wang D, Shen C-C, Liu H-L. Exploring the Impact of Group Tourists’ Citizenship Behavior on Engagement: The Intimacy as a Mediating Variable. Sustainability. 2023; 15(18):13391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813391

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Dan, Ching-Cheng Shen, and Hsi-Lin Liu. 2023. "Exploring the Impact of Group Tourists’ Citizenship Behavior on Engagement: The Intimacy as a Mediating Variable" Sustainability 15, no. 18: 13391. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813391

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