The Relationship Between Work Stress and Compensatory Tourism Consumption: Exploring New Directions for Individual Sustainable Tourism

Abstract

This study explores the impact of work stress on compensatory tourism consumption, with work stress categorized into challenge stressors and hindrance stressors. The research examines the potential for individuals to engage in regular compensatory tourism consumption. Grounded in the Challenge-Hindrance Stress framework, compensatory consumption theory, and the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model, the study employs structural equation modeling (SEM) to integrate these theories with the research model. Data were collected through an online survey, yielding 375 responses, of which 361 were valid. The sample was subjected to statistical analysis of sample characteristics, multifactorial analysis of variance, correlation analysis, convergent validity analysis, regression analysis, and Bootstrap mediation effect testing. The results indicate that work stress is positively correlated with compensatory tourism consumption, and emotional exhaustion partially mediates this relationship. Therefore, tourism industry enterprises can focus on maintaining relationships with customers who choose compensatory tourism consumption, thereby increasing the likelihood of sustainable, recurring compensatory tourism consumption among these customers.

1. Introduction

According to statistics from the Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China, the number of new college graduates nationwide in 2024 reached 11.79 million, an increase of 210,000 compared to 2023. Against the backdrop of a complex domestic economic and employment landscape, graduates increasingly prioritize stable jobs, aiming to achieve steady progress, improve their quality of life, and enhance their resilience to risks. For employers, applying moderate levels of work stress and fostering a competitive atmosphere can benefit employee performance [1]. However, with the continuous growth in the labor force and limited expansion in job opportunities, competition forces individuals to refine their skills repetitively within existing work models. Over time, this leads to a workplace environment characterized by repetitive tasks and declining efficiency, contributing to a phenomenon of “involution” in the labor market [2].

Given the current situation of an oversupply in the labor market, individuals face increasing workplace competition to secure opportunities for job retention, promotion, and salary increases, intensifying the prevalence of “involution” culture in the workplace. This has resulted in escalating work stress for employees. For those unwilling to engage in fierce competition, the tense employment environment compels them to deliberate carefully before making decisions such as resigning. In this context, consumption becomes the most accessible and controllable stress response for individuals [3]. Under high-intensity stress, employees experience greater emotional exhaustion. To achieve emotional balance, they often resort to activities such as exercising, shopping, or traveling as means of stress relief, leveraging their agency to restore psychological equilibrium disrupted by stress. In 2000, Cavanaugh et al. conceptualized work stress by categorizing it into Challenge Stressors and Hindrance Stressors [4]. When the stress experienced by individuals remains within manageable limits, emotional exhaustion is relatively low, and stress can promote personal development, progress, and improved performance, qualifying it as Challenge Stressors. Conversely, when stress exceeds an individual’s coping capacity, emotional exhaustion becomes pronounced, and individuals seek to exercise their agency through alternative behaviors to alleviate negative emotions, characterizing it as Hindrance Stressors. Compensatory consumption is a socially driven behavior in which individuals use consumption to compensate for deficiencies in social status, resource scarcity, or self-perception, thereby restoring their internal sense of balance.

The Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) model provides a robust framework for explaining the phenomena in this study. In the workplace, Work Stress acts as an external stimulus, which leads to internal responses such as anxiety and Emotional Exhaustion, ultimately prompting individuals to seek ways to alleviate stress through behaviors such as traveling, consumption, or resignation, as forms of escapism to restore psychological balance [5]. Work Stress is a persistent presence for individuals in the workplace. As such, the intensity of accumulated stress varies depending on the level of recent work pressure. When Work Stress reaches a high threshold, it leads to periodic Compensatory Tourism Consumption. Based on this, the proposed research pathway in this study suggests that Challenge Stressors and Hindrance Stressors lead to Emotional Exhaustion, which in turn drives Compensatory Tourism Consumption.

Current research on compensatory consumption is relatively abundant, but studies specifically focused on Compensatory Tourism Consumption remain limited. Research on Compensatory Tourism Consumption can be categorized into the following areas: The first category explores the internal factors of compensatory consumption, suggesting that it arises when material and psychological resources are unmet. Psychological factors primarily include unmet emotional needs and threats to self-esteem [6], which can lead to compensatory consumption behaviors involving material goods or experiences. Recent studies also emphasize the influence of childhood experiences on the differential choices of Compensatory Tourism Consumption in adulthood [7]. The second category investigates the external factors of Compensatory Tourism Consumption, particularly in light of the recent impact of COVID-19. Many scholars have explored the relationship between COVID-19 and Compensatory Tourism Consumption. Some researchers argue that during the COVID-19 pandemic, when destination protection measures were adequate and there was no threat of the virus, coupled with tourism incentives, the pandemic had a positive impact on Compensatory Tourism Consumption [8]. Other studies suggest that the suppressed travel demand during the pandemic may not necessarily lead to an explosive rebound in Compensatory Tourism Consumption [9]. However, the exploration of external factors influencing Compensatory Tourism Consumption in existing studies is still insufficient. Viewing the situation in a broader context, COVID-19 will not always be an insurmountable barrier preventing individuals from traveling.

This study acknowledges that Compensatory Tourism Consumption is likely related to objective factors that persistently accompany individuals. Therefore, it further explores the external factors influencing Compensatory Tourism Consumption. The study posits that Work Stress is an ongoing challenge individuals must face in the workplace. A quantitative survey method was employed, with data collected through questionnaires distributed in Beijing, Tianjin, and Heilongjiang Province. A combination of online and offline data collection methods was used to gather sample data. The study explores how Work Stress over a period of time affects Compensatory Tourism Consumption for different individuals. The research aims to answer the following questions: Does Work Stress influence Compensatory Tourism Consumption? Do Challenge Stressors and Hindrance Stressors both affect Compensatory Tourism Consumption? Can Emotional Exhaustion mediate the relationship between Work Stress and Compensatory Tourism Consumption?

From a theoretical perspective, previous research on Compensatory Tourism Consumption has mostly focused on its relationship with COVID-19. In contrast, this study aims to explore the objective factors that lead to Compensatory Tourism Consumption and persist over time for individuals. It innovatively integrates Challenge-Hindrance Stress with Compensatory Tourism Consumption and incorporates the S-O-R model, illustrating the dynamic response process from Challenge-Hindrance Stress to Compensatory Tourism Consumption. This approach enriches the theoretical framework of Compensatory Tourism Consumption and expands the exploration of its external factors. This suggests that Compensatory Tourism Consumption is an emerging choice for alleviating Work Stress and is applicable within the domain of Work Stress responses.

From a practical perspective, this study can help businesses understand the driving factors behind individuals’ tourism decisions and gain insight into consumers’ psychological needs. This knowledge can assist companies in promoting both mental health and tourism, creating a socially empathetic image that resonates with consumers and enhancing corporate social responsibility. It can also help increase the brand value of tourism enterprises and improve market competitiveness. Tourism companies can further tailor stress-relief travel plans for different consumers based on their work nature, such as short trips, weekend getaways, nature-based tourism, or cultural tourism aimed at broadening perspectives. For the government, this research suggests encouraging projects that combine mental health and tourism, offering corresponding tax incentives and subsidies. In fast-paced, economically developed cities, the government could establish “stress-relief tourism programs” and develop urban tourism resources for individuals to choose from. This would not only create a new channel for urban tourism development, boosting the economy of tourism and related industries, but also help shape a more human-centered city image, attracting more talent and enhancing the city’s regional competitiveness.

2. Literature

2.1. Challenge Stressors and Hindrance Stressors

Research on Work Stress has been ongoing since the last century, covering various sources of stress such as job content, organizational structure, and other workplace stressors [10]. Types of Work Stress include high-stress jobs, low-stress jobs, active jobs, and passive jobs [11], as well as the Emotional Exhaustion caused by Work Stress [12], coping strategies for managing Work Stress [13], and stressors related to resource loss or threats to resource acquisition [14]. Additionally, social status and fairness are recognized as factors influencing Work Stress [15]. In 1979, Robert Karasek [11] proposed the Job Demands-Control (JDC) model, also known as the Work Stress model, which explores the impact of the work environment on employees’ psychological stress. In the Stress and Coping Theory, work demands are considered stressors, while personal resources such as an individual’s abilities, time, and health are viewed as personal assets. When individuals perceive that their personal resources are insufficient to cope with excessive work demands, Work Stress arises [13]. While stress is considered a driving force for individual progress within certain limits, it is also a major factor affecting emotional well-being and physical health. Early studies on Work Stress primarily focused on its negative impact on individuals. In 1996, Siegrist introduced the Effort-Reward Imbalance (ERI) model, suggesting that individuals’ time and energy invested in their work should be compensated through salary, respect, and career development [15].

In 2000, Cavanaugh and colleagues proposed the Challenge-Hindrance Stress model, which divides Work Stress into Challenge Stressors and Hindrance Stressors [4]. Challenge Stressors refer to stressors that promote personal growth or provide opportunities, such as heavy workloads or tight deadlines for task completion. Hindrance Stressors, on the other hand, refer to stressors that hinder the smooth completion of work, such as unclear task distribution or redundant and repetitive work processes. These stressors are more likely to lead to dissatisfaction with work content and can trigger burnout. Since then, numerous studies have explored the relationship between Work Stress and stress responses, with most researchers building upon the Challenge-Hindrance Stress model by incorporating other factors and validating their impact pathways. Webster argued that this classification is overly idealized, as individuals, depending on their environment and subjective experiences, may perceive Work Stress as having both Challenge and Hindrance elements simultaneously [16]. In fact, individual personality, situational factors, and differences across time points can influence how an individual perceives stress as either a Challenge or a Hindrance. Moreover, self-efficacy and perceived control can effectively moderate an individual’s assessment of stress [17]. From a broader perspective, the psychological capital traits, including self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, can alleviate employees’ dissatisfaction and burnout while enhancing their performance [18]. Additionally, individuals with high conscientiousness tend to have a more comprehensive evaluation and response to Challenge-Hindrance Stress [19]. Mazzola and Disselhorst (2019) directly criticized the singular Challenge-Hindrance Stress model, conducting a meta-analysis of 32 studies. They found that Challenge Stressors can lead to negative outcomes such as burnout when individuals lack the resources to manage the stress and accomplish tasks. However, when individuals perceive Hindrance Stressors as growth opportunities, they are more likely to experience positive outcomes, highlighting the differences between individuals and their work environments [20]. Furthermore, different types of Work Stress can affect individuals’ positive emotions, which in turn influence their willingness to actively learn new professional skills [21]. Thus, emotions are closely linked to the relationship between Challenge-Hindrance Stress and employee outcomes, as they can alter an individual’s evaluation of Work Stress [22].

In recent years, more scholars have studied the application of the Challenge-Hindrance Stress model across different work domains. In technology and innovation companies, Challenge Stressors can enhance employees’ innovative performance [23]. In companies with international work demands, the requirement for international business trips is perceived by individuals as a Challenge Stressor, which subsequently has a positive impact on employees’ work performance [24]. For teachers, Challenge Stressors have a positive effect on their dedication to teaching [25].

In summary, in this study, Challenge Stressors refer to work pressures that promote individual growth in terms of ability, such as a heavy workload, fast work pace, and tight deadlines for submitting tasks. Hindrance Stressors, on the other hand, are work pressures that reduce an individual’s sense of job identity and satisfaction, such as unclear task distribution, office politics, limited resources available to the individual, and interpersonal conflicts. Previous research on Challenge-Hindrance Stress and its outcomes primarily focuses on differences in how individuals evaluate work stress in various environments and at different times, along with studies on emotions, job performance, and innovative behavior. However, no studies have yet established a connection between Challenge-Hindrance Stress and sustainable Compensatory Tourism Consumption. In addition, this study posits that the mechanisms through which Work Stress, Challenge Stressors, and Hindrance Stressors influence Emotional Exhaustion may differ. Furthermore, all three types of stress may have an impact on Compensatory Tourism Consumption. To ensure the robustness and interpretability of the findings, this study adopts a cautious approach by estimating three separate models independently.

2.2. Compensatory Travel Consumption

Compensatory Tourism Consumption refers to the travel behavior individuals engage in to enhance their self-worth and alleviate feelings of loneliness. It was first introduced by Dann in 1977 [26]. Additionally, travel motivations can be categorized into escape motivation and seeking motivation, with work stress-induced travel falling under the escape motivation category [27]. Travel experiences can effectively alleviate individual stress and increase life satisfaction through four dimensions: psychological relaxation, psychological detachment, a sense of control, and a sense of connection [28]. In recent years, due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, many travelers have experienced increased fear of the unknown, anger, anxiety, and emotional exhaustion during quarantine and stay-at-home experiences. This has led them to plan more compensatory tourism consumption after the pandemic [29]. Boredom, frustration, and lack of stimulation are also considered significant motivations for compensatory tourism consumption, but individual differences, such as personality and past experiences, must also be taken into account [30].

In summary, research on compensatory tourism has mostly focused on exploring the motivations behind compensatory tourism consumption, but there is still a gap in studying the entire dynamic process of compensatory tourism. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the impact of work stress, which is most likely to cause psychological imbalance in employees, by categorizing it into different types and exploring its relationship with compensatory tourism consumption.

2.3. Emotional Exhaustion

Emotional exhaustion refers to a psychological state in which an employee’s emotional energy is significantly depleted due to prolonged work stress and emotional burdens, leaving them mentally and emotionally drained [12]. Emotional exhaustion among employees intensifies burnout, negatively affects job performance, and increases their intention to leave the organization [31]. Emotional exhaustion directly impacts employees’ work attitudes, which in turn affects their job performance. This means that emotional exhaustion leads to emotional fluctuations in employees, often resulting in fatigue, burnout, avoidance, and other negative work attitudes, reducing their engagement and concern for work and ultimately impacting their performance [32]. However, individuals with high emotional intelligence tend to adjust their emotions in a timely manner and are less likely to fall into the trap of emotional exhaustion [33]. High work demands, such as heavy workloads, tight deadlines, and unclear job responsibilities, combined with low autonomy where employees have little control over their work progress, can intensify emotional exhaustion, leading to poorer job performance, decreased sense of responsibility towards the organization, and reduced job identification [34]. Leisure benefits systems, such as paid vacations, flexible work arrangements, and wellness programs, can significantly reduce emotional exhaustion levels, improve employees’ job satisfaction, and lower turnover intentions [35]. This suggests that there is a correlation between employees’ work stress and tourism.

In recent years, research on emotional exhaustion has explored various factors influencing its development. From an internal organizational perspective, toxic leadership has been found to contribute to employees’ emotional exhaustion, which, in turn, leads to deviant workplace behaviors [36]. Additionally, severe emotional exhaustion exacerbates the negative effects of knowledge hiding [37]. From an external perspective, customer incivility has been identified as a significant stressor that induces emotional exhaustion among employees, subsequently reducing job satisfaction and increasing turnover intentions [38]. In the context of external crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic, perceived infectability intensifies emotional exhaustion; however, the instinct for health protection serves as a mitigating factor [39]. Moreover, it is noteworthy that emotional exhaustion has recently gained attention in the field of artificial intelligence. Recent findings suggest that heightened AI awareness strengthens employees’ negative work-related rumination, which, in turn, increases emotional exhaustion and ultimately leads to work withdrawal behaviors [40].

Despite existing research validating the correlation between work stress and emotional exhaustion, prior studies have primarily focused on employees’ negative reactions toward their work following emotional exhaustion. In contrast, this study emphasizes individuals’ proactive behaviors in response to emotional exhaustion. Specifically, this research examines whether emotional exhaustion increases compensatory tourism consumption and strengthens the relationship between work stress and compensatory tourism consumption by mediating the effects of challenge stressors and hindrance stressors on compensatory tourism consumption.

3. Theoretical Foundation

3.1. The Challenge-Hindrance Stress Theory

The Challenge-Hindrance Stress Theory was proposed by Cavanaugh in 2000. The theory divides work stressors into challenge stressors and hindrance stressors. Challenge stressors refer to stressors that promote an individual’s work and growth, including factors such as a heavy workload that is still manageable, complex work requirements, and tight deadlines [4]. Challenge stressors may cause individuals to experience emotions such as controlled tension and anxiety, but overall, they are considered positive stressors. They are closely related to employee satisfaction, organizational commitment, and work attitudes and have a positive impact on individual motivation, self-improvement, and a sense of work identification and satisfaction [41]. Hindrance stressors, on the other hand, are negative work stressors that hinder employees from achieving their work goals. These stressors can lead to negative emotions and even psychological issues, resulting in burnout, increased turnover intentions, and other negative outcomes. Hindrance stressors may include role conflicts or repetition of tasks in the workplace, unclear work responsibilities, constantly changing requirements, limited career development resources, and bureaucratic work styles, all of which diminish employees’ enthusiasm for work and reduce their work engagement. These stressors can lead to burnout, emotional exhaustion, and turnover tendencies. However, if hindrance stressors are managed through problem-focused coping, they can effectively alleviate psychological pressure, while emotion-focused coping tends to be less effective [42]. This study incorporates the Challenge-Hindrance Stress Theory into the research on compensatory tourism consumption, exploring the differential effects of challenge and hindrance work stress on stress responses.

In summary, the effects of Challenge Stressors and Hindrance Stressors vary significantly across individuals. Therefore, this study posits that the mechanisms through which Work Stress, Challenge Stressors, and Hindrance Stressors influence individual responses may differ. To explore these mechanisms in relation to Compensatory Tourism Consumption, this study decomposes Challenge-Hindrance Stress into three separate estimation models: Work Stress, Challenge Stressors, and Hindrance Stressors. Each model is examined independently to assess its respective impact on Compensatory Tourism Consumption.

3.2. Compensatory Psychology Theory

Gronmo first introduced the concept of compensatory consumption in 1988, which refers to individuals using consumption to achieve satisfaction when experiencing psychological imbalance [43]. Later, Grunert introduced a new perspective on compensatory consumption through a variable function, explaining that after experiencing an event X that causes psychological imbalance, individuals may be unable to directly alleviate their psychological pressure on X due to limited resources and other factors [44]. Therefore, they turn to an unrelated event Y to release pressure and regain psychological balance. This is the compensatory consumption theory, which follows the path from X to Y [44]. In line with the literature, tourism is a separate domain from work stress. However, since tourism offers relaxation, leisure, and stress relief, this study predicts that tourism can serve as an important way for individuals to alleviate work stress and regulate their psychological balance.

3.3. Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) Model

In 1974, Mehrabian introduced the Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) Model, a classic framework in environmental psychology that emphasizes the impact of the environment on individual psychology and how different psychological changes influence response behaviors [5]. Emotions and an individual’s cognitive evaluation of the current situation mediate the behavior between external stimuli and consumer actions. This provides a detailed and comprehensive theoretical foundation for understanding consumer behavior in both online and offline contexts, as well as the interaction between brands and consumers [45]. The theory is commonly used to explain impulse buying [46] and online repurchase behavior [47]. While there is some research on experiential purchasing, particularly regarding virtual reality experiences [48], the application of the S-O-R model to tourism remains a research gap. This study combines the S-O-R model to predict that emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between external work stress and tourism consumption.

3.4. The Relationship Between Challenge Stressors, Hindrance Stressors, and Compensatory Travel Consumption

During the COVID-19 pandemic, to reduce the spread of the virus, many countries implemented home quarantine policies. After being restricted in their freedom, individuals typically increased their plans for travel once the pandemic ended [8]. Work stress can lead to emotional changes in employees, which in turn may trigger compensatory tourism consumption [27]. Previous research on responses to stress caused by external forces has mostly focused on material consumption. These studies generally suggest that compensatory material consumption can only temporarily restore psychological balance and does not provide long-term relief from such stress. However, compensatory tourism consumption not only provides short-term relief from psychological stress but also has a long-term impact on an individual’s psychological balance, significantly enhancing life satisfaction [28]. There is limited research on experiential consumption, and most of it focuses on virtual reality and electronic experiences [48], leaving a substantial gap in research on experiential consumption. Based on the above, this study introduces the challenge-hindrance work stress model into the relationship between work stress and tourism consumption, predicting that both challenge stressors and hindrance stressors can influence compensatory tourism consumption. This will contribute to the research on compensatory experiential consumption. Therefore, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1. 

Work stress has a positive effect on compensatory tourism consumption.

H1a. 

Challenge stressors have a positive effect on compensatory tourism consumption.

H1b. 

Hindrance stressors have a positive effect on compensatory tourism consumption.

3.5. The Mediating Role of Emotional Exhaustion

Emotional exhaustion refers to the phenomenon where an individual’s emotional resources are depleted due to excessive stress, leading to a shortage of emotional energy. Under the influence of external environmental factors, individuals may experience emotions such as fear, anger, and worry, which lead to emotional exhaustion and result in the compensatory consumption of material goods and experiences [29]. For high-stress occupational groups, emotional exhaustion is a significant driver of tourism behavior [49]. This suggests that under challenge stressors, emotional exhaustion is less pronounced, but individuals still encourage themselves to meet work goals, thus supporting their ability to handle high-pressure work in the future. Compensatory consumption behavior is more likely to occur after achieving work goals, meaning that the cycle for compensatory tourism consumption is longer. Therefore, despite the lower levels of emotional exhaustion, this study still posits that challenge stressors have a positive effect on emotional exhaustion, further intensifying the occurrence of compensatory tourism consumption. The positive restorative experiences brought by tourism can help individuals alleviate work stress and emotional exhaustion, improving their psychological well-being and work performance [50]. In the case of hindrance stressors, emotional exhaustion is significantly higher, and individuals are more likely to engage in compensatory tourism consumption as a way to cope with their emotions. This study suggests that hindrance stressors have a positive effect on emotional exhaustion, which in turn positively influences compensatory tourism consumption.

Corporate welfare programs, such as paid leave and health checkups, have a significant impact on alleviating employees’ emotional exhaustion [35]. However, due to the current trend of overwork, paid leave is no longer a universal benefit as employee stress increases. Therefore, this study suggests that limiting welfare programs to those provided by the company is becoming increasingly difficult. The scope of the research should be expanded beyond the corporate perspective, as compensatory tourism can also be an active choice made by individuals. Based on the above, this study proposes the following hypotheses:

H2. 

Challenge stressors have a positive effect on emotional exhaustion.

H3. 

Hindrance stressors have a positive effect on emotional exhaustion.

H4. 

Emotional exhaustion has a positive effect on compensatory tourism consumption.

H5. 

Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between challenge stressors and compensatory tourism consumption.

H6. 

Emotional exhaustion mediates the relationship between hindrance stressors and compensatory tourism consumption.

In summary, the research model for this study is shown in Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3.

4. Methods

4.1. Data Collection

This study adopts a quantitative research method. The questionnaire was designed using the online platform “Wenjuanxing”, and the QR code for the survey was saved to the gallery. It was distributed through both online and offline channels. The online channels included sharing the questionnaire QR code via WeChat groups, private chats, and Moments, while the offline channels involved collecting responses in locations such as libraries, workplaces, and sports venues. The diverse channels for questionnaire collection help gather a broader and more varied sample, enhancing the reproducibility, usefulness, and rigor of the study. Additionally, this study employed stratified random sampling, categorizing the sample based on gender, birth year, occupation, education level, and monthly income. The purpose of this approach is to ensure that the sample covers as many groups as possible, improving its representativeness and minimizing bias caused by a homogeneous sample.

Due to time and spatial constraints, the data were primarily collected from Beijing, Tianjin, and Heilongjiang Province. Beijing and Tianjin represent China’s most economically developed central cities, while Heilongjiang Province is a less economically developed region. This selection reflects differences in social environments, lifestyles, thinking patterns, and consumption levels. The choice of sample locations in this study helps collect data from regions with varying economic levels, making the sample data highly significant for testing the applicability of the research hypotheses to real-world settings, thereby laying the foundation for the generalizability of the study. Data collection began on 14 September 2024 and ended on 26 September 2024, spanning a total of 12 days. A total of 375 valid questionnaire responses were received.

To ensure data quality, two screening methods were applied. First, questionnaires completed in less than 55 s were considered to have been filled out randomly and were therefore deemed invalid and removed. This step resulted in the exclusion of 14 questionnaires. The second method involved removing questionnaires in which all answers were identical, but no such cases were found. As a result, the final valid sample size was 361 questionnaires. This study utilized SPSS version 28 to perform demographic analysis, multifactorial analysis of variance, reliability analysis, correlation analysis, regression analysis, mediation effect analysis, and Bootstrap mediation effect testing. The demographic profile is shown in

Table 1. Demographic Profile.

Demographic Attribute		Frequency	Percent
Gender	Male	178	49.3
	Female	183	50.7
Year of Birth	After 2000	7	1.9
	1990–1999	91	25.2
	1980–1989	132	36.6
	1970–1979	88	24.4
	Before 1969	43	11.9
Profession	student	17	4.7
	teacher	42	11.6
	State-owned enterprises, public institutions and civil servants	218	60.4
	Private enterprise employees	47	13.0
	Individuals and freelancers	37	10.2
Education	High school and below	18	5.0
	College	43	11.9
	Undergraduate	159	44.0
	Master degree and above	141	39.1
Monthly income	Less than 5000 yuan	96	26.6
	5001–10,000 Yuan	165	45.7
	10,001–20,000 Yuan	62	17.2
	20,000 yuan and above	38	10.5

.

This study conducted sample characteristic statistics on demographic variables that may influence compensatory tourism consumption. To measure the impact of gender, age, occupation, education level, and monthly income on compensatory tourism consumption, a multifactorial analysis of variance was used. The data results show that the p-value for gender is 0.562, for age is 0.989, for occupation is 0.122, for education level is 0.704, and for monthly income is 0.884. Since the p-values for all five demographic variables are greater than 0.05, none of them meet the significance threshold. Therefore, gender, age, occupation, education level, and monthly income do not have a significant impact on compensatory tourism consumption.

4.2. Instrumentation

To ensure high content validity, this study employed established scales developed by previous researchers. The Challenge-Hindrance Work Stress scale, based on the research of Cavanaugh et al. [4], includes two dimensions: challenge stressors and hindrance stressors. The Challenge Stressors scale consists of four items, such as “the amount of tasks I need to complete” and “the amount of time I invest in my work”. The Hindrance Stressors scale includes three items, such as “I do not clearly understand my work standards”, “completing work requires many procedures” and “I feel insecure about my work”. The scales have been validated in various contexts, ensuring internal consistency, reliability, and validity, making them suitable for subsequent research [51].

In measuring compensatory tourism consumption, this study used the scale developed by Luo Li and Cao Xinghua et al. in 2023 to assess the intensity of compensatory consumption psychology. This scale has undergone empirical testing with a large sample of data and has been validated for subsequent research [52]. Items include “Increasing the frequency of travel makes me feel prouder” and “Travel allows me to temporarily escape from the trivialities of daily life”. The Emotional Exhaustion scale used in this study comes from the emotional exhaustion subscale of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS) developed by Maslach et al. in 1997. The scale has passed internal and external validation, reliability, consistency, and convergent validity tests, making it suitable for subsequent research [53]. The scale contains five items, such as “Work makes me feel physically and emotionally drained” and “Work makes me feel like I’m about to break down”. Reliability testing conducted on the sample data showed that the Cronbach’s α values for all variable items were greater than 0.7, indicating good reliability. Therefore, the questionnaire is considered trustworthy and suitable for academic research.

5. Results

In this section of the table, for ease of viewing, the following abbreviations are used: Work Stress is abbreviated as S, Challenge stressors is abbreviated as CS, Hindrance stressors is abbreviated as HS, Emotional exhaustion is abbreviated as EE, and Compensatory travel consumption is abbreviated as C. Next, Pearson correlation analysis, convergent validity analysis, and regression analysis tests are conducted on the data.

5.1. Pearson Correlation Analysis

To measure the correlation and collinearity between variables, this study uses PEARSON correlation analysis. The analysis results are shown in

Table 2. Pearson correlation.

	CS	HS	S	C	EE
CS	1
HS	0.472 **	1
S	0.891 **	0.820 **	1
C	0.456 **	0.311 **	0.456 **	1
EE	0.446 **	0.625 **	0.611 **	0.296 **	1

** The correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

.

As shown in Table 2, the significance p-values are all <0.01, and the correlation coefficients (r values) between Challenge Stressors, Hindrance Stressors, Work Stress, Compensatory Tourism Consumption, and Emotional Exhaustion are all >0. This indicates that at the 0.01 level (two-tailed), there is a significant positive correlation between the variables. This means that, with 99% confidence, the correlation between the variables is not a random result, thus demonstrating statistical significance and making it suitable for subsequent research [54].

5.2. Validity Analysis

In terms of content validity, mature scales from previous studies were used, ensuring good content validity. To measure the validity of the items, this study employed SEM (Structural Equation Modeling) and used AMOS 27.0 software to calculate factor loadings, CR (Composite Reliability), and AVE (Average Variance Extracted) values. The results of the convergent validity test are shown in

Table 3. Convergent validity.

Latent Variables	Items	CR	AVE
Work Stress	S1-S7	0.909	0.594
Emotional exhaustion	EE1-EE5	0.921	0.702
Compensatory travel consumption	C1-C12	0.942	0.574

below.

As shown in Table 3, the CR values of all variables are greater than 0.7, and the AVE values are greater than 0.5, indicating that the convergent validity of all variables is good and that further analysis can be conducted [55].

5.3. Regression Analysis

To verify the relationship between the independent and dependent variables, this study conducted a regression analysis. The regression analysis results for challenge stress are shown in

Table 4. Regression analysis of challenge stressors on compensatory tourism consumption.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	2.179	0.167		13.019	0.000
Challenge Stressors	0.436	0.045	0.456	9.709	0.000

Dependent variable: Compensatory Travel Consumption (C).

.

As shown in Table 4, the standardized beta coefficient for challenge stress is 0.456, which is greater than 0, and the significance value is 0.000, indicating a significant effect. Therefore, hypothesis H1a is supported, suggesting that challenge stress has a significant positive impact on compensatory travel consumption.

As shown in

Table 5. Regression analysis of hindrance stressors on compensatory tourism consumption.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	2.964	0.135		21.961	0.000
Hindrance Stressors	0.281	0.045	0.311	6.196	0.000

Dependent variable: Compensatory Travel Consumption (C).

, the standardized coefficient Beta value for Hindrance Stressors is 0.311, which is greater than 0, and the significance level is 0.000, which is less than 0.05. This indicates a significant effect, thus supporting Hypothesis H1b. It suggests that Hindrance Stressors have a significant positive impact on Compensatory Tourism Consumption. Therefore, both H1a and H1b are positively supported in this study.

As shown in

Table 6. Regression analysis of work stress on compensatory tourism consumption.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	2.141	0.171		12.486	0.000
Work Stress	0.494	0.051	0.456	9.698	0.000

Dependent variable: Compensatory Travel Consumption (C).

, the standardized Beta coefficient for dual work stress is 0.456 > 0, with a significance level of 0.000 < 0.05, indicating a significant effect. Thus, Hypothesis H1 is supported, demonstrating that dual work stress has a significant positive impact on compensatory travel consumption. Consequently, Hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1 all receive positive support.

As shown in

Table 7. Regression analysis of challenge stressors on emotional exhaustion.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	1.119	0.195		5.751	0.000
Challenge Stressors	0.493	0.052	0.446	9.444	0.000

Dependent variable: Emotional Exhaustion (EE).

, the standardized coefficient Beta value for challenge stressors is 0.446, which is greater than 0, and the significance level is 0.000, which is less than 0.05. This indicates a significant effect, thus supporting Hypothesis H2. This suggests that challenge stressors have a significant positive impact on emotional exhaustion.

As shown in

Table 8. Regression analysis of hindrance stressors on emotional exhaustion.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	1.071	0.128		8.358	0.000
Hindrance Stressors	0.653	0.043	0.625	15.164	0.000

Dependent variable: Emotional Exhaustion (EE).

, the standardized coefficient Beta value for hindrance stressors is 0.625, which is greater than 0, and the significance level is 0.000, which is less than 0.05. This indicates a significant effect, thus supporting Hypothesis H3. This suggests that hindrance stressors have a significant positive impact on emotional exhaustion.

As shown in

Table 9. Regression analysis of emotional exhaustion on compensatory tourism consumption.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	3.007	0.135		22.319	0.000
Emotional Exhaustion	0.256	0.044	0.296	5.874	0.000

Dependent variable: Compensatory Travel Consumption (C).

, the standardized coefficient Beta value for emotional exhaustion is 0.296, which is greater than 0, and the significance level is 0.000, which is less than 0.05. This indicates a significant effect, thus supporting Hypothesis H4. This suggests that emotional exhaustion has a significant positive impact on compensatory tourism consumption.

The mediation effect in this study was tested using the stepwise method proposed by Baron and Kenny in 1986 [56]. The mediation effect test results for challenge stressors are presented in

Table 10. Mediation analysis of challenge stressors.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	2.179	0.167		13.019	0.000
Challenge Stressors	0.436	0.045	0.456	9.709	0.000
(Constant)	2.067	0.174		11.882	0.000
Challenge Stressors	0.387	0.050	0.404	7.748	0.000
Emotional Exhaustion	0.100	0.045	0.116	2.216	0.027

Dependent variable: Compensatory Travel Consumption (C).

.

As shown in Table 10, after adding the mediator variable of Emotional Exhaustion, the standardized Beta coefficient for Challenge Stressors in relation to the dependent variable, Compensatory Tourism Consumption, decreased from 0.456 to 0.404. This indicates that Emotional Exhaustion partially mediates the relationship between Challenge Stressors and Compensatory Tourism Consumption. Therefore, Hypothesis H2 is supported, suggesting that Emotional Exhaustion plays a partial mediating role between Challenge Stressors and Compensatory Tourism Consumption. The scatter plot for the mediation effect of Challenge Stressors is shown in Figure 4.

As shown in

Table 11. Mediation analysis of hindrance stressors.

Model	Unstandardized Coefficients		Standardized Coefficients	t	Significance
	B	Standard Error	Beta
(Constant)	2.964	0.135		21.961	0.000
Hindrance Stressors	0.281	0.045	0.311	6.196	0.000
(Constant)	2.809	0.146		19.198	0.000
Hindrance Stressors	0.187	0.058	0.206	3.238	0.001
Emotional Exhaustion	0.145	0.055	0.167	2.623	0.009

Dependent variable: Compensatory Travel Consumption (C).

, after adding the mediator variable of Emotional Exhaustion, the standardized Beta coefficient of Hindrance Stressors on the dependent variable of Compensatory Tourism Consumption decreased from 0.311 to 0.206, and the significance increased from 0.000 to 0.001, which is still less than 0.05. This indicates that Emotional Exhaustion partially mediates the relationship between Hindrance Stressors and Compensatory Tourism Consumption. Therefore, Hypothesis H3 is supported, meaning that Emotional Exhaustion plays a partial mediating role between Hindrance Stressors and Compensatory Tourism Consumption. The scatter plot of the mediation effect of Hindrance Stressors is shown in Figure 5.

According to

Table 12. Bootstrap Mediation Effect Test Results.

	Effect	SE	T	95% Confidence Interval		Proportion of Effect Size
				BootLLCI	BootULCI
Total Effect	0.436	0.045	9.709	0.348	0.524
Direct Effect	0.387	0.05	7.748	0.288	0.485	88.76%
Indirect Effect	0.049	0.027	\	0.001	0.106	11.24%

, the total effect value is 0.436, with a confidence interval of [0.348, 0.524], which does not include 0, indicating that the total effect is significant. The direct effect value is 0.387, with a confidence interval of [0.288, 0.485], which also does not include 0, indicating that the direct effect is significant, accounting for 88.76% of the effect. The indirect effect value is 0.049, with a confidence interval of [0.001, 0.106], which does not include 0, indicating that the indirect effect is significant, accounting for 11.24% of the effect. The relatively low proportion of the mediation effect suggests a weak mediating influence. This may be due to the existence of other unexplored factors that influence the relationship between work stress and compensatory tourism consumption.

In conclusion, the results from both hierarchical regression analysis and the bootstrap method corroborate each other, indicating that the mediating effect of emotional exhaustion is present. Furthermore, emotional exhaustion plays a partial mediating role in the relationship in this study.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

6.1. Research Results and Discussion

Based on the results of the data analysis, the findings support the hypotheses in this study. Specifically, Hypothesis H1 is supported, indicating that work stress has a positive impact on compensatory tourism consumption. Hypothesis H1a is also supported, meaning that challenge stressors positively affect compensatory tourism consumption. Similarly, Hypothesis H1b is supported, showing that hindrance stressors have a positive effect on compensatory tourism consumption. Hypothesis H2 is validated, suggesting that challenge stressors have a positive effect on emotional exhaustion. Hypothesis H3 is confirmed, indicating that hindrance stressors also have a positive effect on emotional exhaustion. Furthermore, Hypothesis H4 is supported, as emotional exhaustion positively influences compensatory tourism consumption. Hypothesis H5 is substantiated, as the standardized beta coefficient for challenge stressors on compensatory tourism consumption decreases from 0.456 to 0.404 after incorporating emotional exhaustion, indicating that emotional exhaustion partially mediates the relationship between challenge stressors and compensatory tourism consumption. Hypothesis H6 is also supported, as the standardized beta coefficient for hindrance stressors on compensatory tourism consumption decreases from 0.311 to 0.206, with significance increasing from 0.000 to 0.001. This shows that emotional exhaustion partially mediates the relationship between hindrance stressors and compensatory tourism consumption. The indirect effect in this study accounts for 11% of the total effect, suggesting that although the mediation effect is statistically significant, it is relatively weak. This implies that other factors influencing compensatory tourism consumption may exist, which could be explored in future research.

6.2. Research Conclusions

This study innovatively integrates the Challenge-Hindrance Stress Theory into research on Compensatory Tourism Consumption, exploring the differential effects of Challenge Stressors and Hindrance Stressors on Compensatory Tourism Consumption. Additionally, Emotional Exhaustion is introduced as a mediating variable. By incorporating perspectives from the S-O-R model, Work Stress Theory, and Compensatory Consumption Theory, this study explains how Emotional Exhaustion mediates the relationship between external Work Stress and tourism consumption, integrating these three theoretical frameworks to provide a comprehensive and dynamic perspective on Compensatory Tourism Consumption. This aligns with previous research findings on the impact of Work Stress on compensatory consumption while further refining this conclusion from multiple perspectives [27]. According to the S-O-R model [5], these findings confirm its applicability in the context of Compensatory Tourism Consumption, expanding the theoretical perspective beyond prior research. Unlike previous studies that primarily focused on experiential consumption, this study fills a critical research gap by exploring Compensatory Tourism Consumption within experiential consumption, extending beyond the realm of virtual electronic product experiences [48]. The validation of the pathway in which Work Stress affects Compensatory Tourism Consumption through the mediating effect of Emotional Exhaustion provides valuable insights into how individuals, when experiencing high levels of Work Stress over time, may opt for Compensatory Tourism Consumption as a coping mechanism. Previous research on the Compensatory Consumption Theory has largely focused on psychological compensation through luxury consumption for status and identity, while studies on the Compensatory Tourism Consumption have often been framed within the context of COVID-19 [29]. However, unlike prior research, this study provides evidence that even in the absence of COVID-19, individuals still engage in Compensatory Tourism Consumption, demonstrating the broader applicability of this consumption behavior.

This study holds significant reference value for organizational management in enterprises. From the perspective of alleviating employee work stress, enterprises are the source of stress, and thus, they have absolute authority in managing employee pressure. For employees in creative roles, companies can implement flexible work arrangements, such as allowing remote work, to reduce commuting stress and office politics. This can provide a work environment conducive to research and development. For employees in performance-oriented roles, companies can moderate the pressure they impose on employees to avoid excessive performance pressure, which could lead to avoidance behavior. This helps ensure employees’ mental well-being. At the same time, appropriate reward and punishment measures can be introduced to encourage employees to take regular breaks after completing quarterly performance targets, ensuring sustainable work output.

From the perspective of compensatory tourism, organizations can help employees alleviate work stress by offering discounted travel programs and increasing job recognition and team cohesion, which in turn supports organizational development. However, considering the current workplace environment, such initiatives could significantly raise management costs, which is disadvantageous in a market environment focused on cost reduction and efficiency improvement. Therefore, companies only need to ensure short-term vacations for employees after performance targets are met and encourage employees to engage in tourism as a form of stress relief during these breaks. This strategy would help cultivate a company image that emphasizes humanistic care, with notifications about the “encouragement to apply for leave after completing performance targets” sent to employees through corporate unions or email, maximizing the guiding effect. This approach helps turn compensatory tourism behavior into a subjective choice for individuals, enabling companies to build a highly productive yet compassionate image with minimal costs. It also enhances the company’s sense of social responsibility while attracting more talent. Additionally, companies can leverage their own strengths by partnering with wellness and healing centers for resource exchange. For instance, Google could develop wellness center projects that are tailored to the unique characteristics of each company, as mentioned in its corporate wellness retreat program.

For the tourism industry, compared to the short-term stress relief achieved through compensatory material consumption, compensatory tourism has a positive impact on stress relief, life satisfaction, and the maintenance of mental health. Tourism businesses can heavily promote this advantage by launching programs such as natural healing, cultural and artistic healing, and sports adventure healing based on customer preferences. These programs can help release stress through natural environments, cultural and art exhibitions, or activities like hiking and extreme sports, thereby bundling stress relief with tourism in marketing efforts. By focusing on maintaining customers who experience high work stress but are willing to engage in compensatory tourism consumption, businesses can encourage sustainable and recurring compensatory tourism consumption behaviors. By enhancing emotional value care for these customers and providing work stress relief, businesses can increase customer loyalty, creating the potential for deeply embedded, sustainable consumption.

In the context of environmental issues, sustainable tourism is a direction that requires long-term guidance. Compared to performance-oriented tourism, sustainable tourism incurs higher costs, which means it requires more funding and tourists to develop further. Traditionally, tourism has been one of the leisure choices for people, but incorporating the concept of stress relief can attract a larger group of tourists, thus promoting the development of the tourism industry. This is especially beneficial in the context of intense societal competition (involution), as stress-relieving tourism can support the mental health of urban residents, contribute to the development of tourism, and even prevent adverse events caused by excessive stress. When a large number of tourists show an interest in stress-relief tourism, tourism companies can better understand consumer psychology, giving sustainable tourism a marketing direction and the potential for further development. Tourism enterprises can, based on actual conditions, set limits on the number of visitors to scenic spots in customized stress-relief tourism projects and can also develop tourism projects themed around “protecting the environment and purifying the soul”, achieving sustainable tourism development that also protects the environment.

For the government, cities with intense competition and high work stress can strongly promote the concept of sustainable tourism. On one hand, it can offer green tax incentives to businesses developing stress-relief tourism projects. On the other hand, subsidies can be provided to citizens who participate in sustainable tourism programs. By aligning with tourism businesses that promote stress relief and tourism, the government can guide citizens to engage in sustainable tourism projects. This approach not only benefits the development of the sustainable tourism industry and creates an economic growth direction for the city’s tourism sector, but it also helps citizens stabilize their work stress and emotions through tourism, thereby preventing the emergence of socially volatile or violent incidents. In the long term, this will help maintain social harmony and stability.

Due to time and spatial constraints, the sample size is limited. While Beijing, Tianjin, and Heilongjiang have certain diversity in economic development and social environment, this does not represent data results across all of China or in an international context. Geographical and economic limitations may lead to potential constraints in the data, which could affect its generalizability. Therefore, future researchers could collect samples in an international context or gather multi-provincial samples from the northern and southern or eastern and western regions of the same country. Additionally, extending the data collection period and increasing the proportion of offline surveys would improve the representativeness of the questionnaires. By using various analytical tools, researchers can further test whether cultural and economic differences have varying impacts on compensatory tourism consumption. Moreover, this study primarily examines the impact of challenge-hindrance work stress on compensatory tourism consumption and, therefore, may overlook other influencing factors, such as cultural differences and income disparities, which could affect the generalizability of the findings. Future studies could explore other factors affecting compensatory consumption by introducing moderating variables such as individual resilience in the face of stress, income differences, and financial status, thereby further refining the model. Researchers could also perform a horizontal comparative analysis of compensatory tourism consumption decision-making across different regions or validate the findings through different personality traits, organizational cultures, and individual coping strategies, among other variables.