The Role of Intellectual Humility in Sustainable Tourism Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on a very interesting theme. The goal of the paper is clear and is well motivated. This study introduces the personality trait of intellectual humility into the field of sustainable tourism development research for the first time, and expandes Freeman's stakeholder theory by linking it to personal characteristics and tourism attitudes.

The study has the potential to make a useful contribution to the research areas of sustainable tourism. Although I think the methods and findings presented in this paper are interesting and important, the manuscript could be improved from the following aspects.

 

1.The use of snowball sampling (via the authors' personal social networks) may have resulted in an underrepresentative sample.  The generalizability of results to other cultural and occupational groups is questionable. The authors can explain these limitations more fully in the discussion section.

2. The path coefficients in Table 4 do not provide specific values, which is not conducive to the interpretation of the results.

3.Although the relationship between IH and negative ecological attitudes was validated, the mediating mechanism was not sufficiently analyzed.

Author Response

The paper focuses on a very interesting theme. The goal of the paper is clear and is well motivated. This study introduces the personality trait of intellectual humility into the field of sustainable tourism development research for the first time and expanded Freeman's stakeholder theory by linking it to personal characteristics and tourism attitudes.

The study has the potential to make a useful contribution to the research areas of sustainable tourism. Although I think the methods and findings presented in this paper are interesting and important, the manuscript could be improved from the following aspects.

Response: Thank you very much for your encouragement. In the following paragraphs, we address each of your comments to the best of our ability. We hope you will find the revised version of our manuscript (highlighted in track change) satisfactory to you.

1.The use of snowball sampling (via the authors' personal social networks) may have resulted in an under-representative sample.  The generalizability of results to other cultural and occupational groups is questionable. The authors can explain these limitations more fully in the discussion section.

Response: We have included in the discussion section a more thorough discussion of the study’s limitations including the underrepresentation of the sample and lack of external validity in generalizing the study’s findings to other cultural and occupational groups.

2. The path coefficients in Table 4 do not provide specific values, which is not conducive to the interpretation of the results.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised Table 4 so that the variable Honesty-Humility is now labelled as “prosocial tendency” to be consistent with Figure 1 in the previous version of the manuscript. In addition, Figure 1 is now labelled Figure 2 as we added a figure to reflect our proposed multi-level integrated model in response to Reviewer 2. We also added a sentence about the two variables: “Honesty-humility” and “prosocial tendency” being used interchangeably in the revised manuscript.

3.Although the relationship between IH and negative ecological attitudes was validated, the mediating mechanism was not sufficiently analyzed.

Response: We concur that the mediating mechanism of sex – personality – pro-environmental attitudes and behavior has been investigated in prior research (e.g., Desrochers et al., 2019). Whereas we did reference this study in our original manuscript, it was not our intention to conduct a mediation analysis. Our intention was to treat the demographic variables of age and sex as control variables or correlates with the personality trait of honesty-humility (i.e., prosocial tendency) and travel/tourism impact attitude. We also do not think it is appropriate in terms of temporality to treat personality trait as a mediator because it is difficult to justify personality both conceptually and theoretically as occurring after sex or gender to satisfy it being the mediator of the sex – personality – attitude relationship based on past research (Baron & Kenny, 1986, Maxwell et al., 2011). We hope that the addition satisfies your concern.

References:

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Maxwell, S. E., Cole, D. A., & Mitchell, M. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(5), 816–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.606716

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript examines the relationship between intellectual humility (IH) and attitudes toward sustainable tourism development. The authors employ a structural equation model (SEM) to explore the relationships between personality factors, such as Honesty-Humility from the HEXACO model and IH, and perceptions of the ecological, economic, and social impacts of tourism. This topic is relevant and contributes to expanding knowledge in environmental psychology and tourism. However, the manuscript contains several methodological, conceptual, and structural shortcomings that need to be addressed before publication.

In the current version of the manuscript, the authors' names and affiliations are missing. This makes it impossible to assess potential conflicts of interest or the extent of self-citations. I assume that this information will be added in later stages of the review process. The references in the article are not properly formatted. Some sources are not arranged alphabetically, and in cases where multiple works by the same author are cited, chronological order is not always followed. Several articles lack DOI or URL links, and some books and book chapters do not include editors or publishers. The formatting of references (hanging indent 0.75 cm) is not maintained, making readability more difficult.

The abstract is relatively brief and does not contain all the necessary components. There is no clear justification for the study or its context within existing knowledge. The methodological section is not sufficiently detailed and does not explicitly state which scales were used or how common method variance (CMV) was controlled. The results are presented only briefly, without specific statistical details, reducing their clarity. Additionally, the abstract does not emphasize the originality of the research or its contribution to the existing literature or practice.

The introduction effectively presents the broader research context, particularly the role of individual characteristics in environmental behavior and sustainability. However, the literature used is not sufficiently up-to-date. Some key claims are based on sources that are more than ten years old, even though research in this field has expanded significantly since 2011. For example, the statement that most research focuses on the macro level while less attention is given to individual characteristics is supported by Yu et al. (2011), which may no longer be entirely accurate given the developments in the field. The authors cite only two publications from after 2020, which is insufficient for a rapidly evolving research area such as environmental psychology and sustainable tourism. Similarly, while Freeman’s stakeholder theory (1984, 2010) remains relevant, it should be supplemented with newer applications in the contemporary context.

The theoretical framework should be separated as a standalone section; however, in its current form, it is too brief and does not sufficiently elaborate on the connections between different theories. A deeper discussion on linking the HEXACO model, intellectual humility, and stakeholder theory to the research problem is missing. Additionally, a critical comparison of various theoretical approaches to the topic is lacking. If the authors intend to keep the theoretical framework within the introduction, it should be expanded with more recent findings and their interconnections.

The methodological section does not provide sufficiently detailed information about the application of the SEM model. It does not specify what type of SEM was used, what fit indices were analyzed, or how CMV was controlled. In the “Results” section, the authors do test for normality, but the methodology should explicitly state which assumptions were checked before performing the analysis. The process of imputing missing data is not described, and a multicollinearity test between predictors is missing.

In the results section, it is unclear how the robustness of the model was analyzed. Model 4, which the authors selected as the best fit, achieved a CFI of .73, which is below the recommended threshold of .90. The authors do not interpret this shortcoming or discuss the implications of a low fit index for the reliability of their model. Explicit information on how CMV was addressed is also missing, as there is no mention of specific CMV tests in the methodology. The evaluation of hypotheses is not entirely consistent—while Hypothesis 1 was partially supported, there is no thorough explanation as to why Honesty-Humility was associated only with negative ecological impacts and not with other dimensions of tourism. Hypothesis 2 was also only partially supported, with the authors suggesting that the lack of a specific tourist destination may explain the results, but without further theoretical justification.

The discussion section provides only a superficial interpretation of the results without deeper analysis of their significance. It does not sufficiently explore why intellectual humility was not related to the social and economic impacts of tourism. The authors mention only one case study (Venice) to apply their findings, but a broader discussion on potential implications for tourism management in different cultural and economic contexts is absent. There are no concrete methodological recommendations for future research, and suggestions for experimental or longitudinal studies that could provide stronger evidence of causality in the examined relationships are missing.

The conclusion does not contain specific findings from the study, only general statements about its significance. It is not sufficiently connected to the broader scientific and policy context. Although the authors reference SDG 13, it is unclear how their research can contribute to real policy decisions or sustainable development strategies.

The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revisions before being considered for publication. The authors should expand and update the literature, provide more details about the methodology (especially SEM and CMV control), revise the discussion to focus more on result interpretation, and correct formal issues, particularly in the references. Once these changes are implemented, the manuscript will be more suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thank you so much for going through out manuscript with a fine tooth comb. We took to heart your comments and have revised our manuscript accordingly. We hope that you will find our revision satisfactory. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment
This manuscript provides a novel and insightful exploration of how intellectual humility (IH) and pro-social tendency (Honesty-Humility from the HEXACO model) influence attitudes toward sustainable tourism development. The study contributes to the literature on individual psychological traits and environmentalism, bridging the gap between personal characteristics and sustainable tourism attitudes.
However, there are several areas that need improvement, particularly in theoretical positioning, methodology explanation, and discussion of implications. The manuscript would benefit from a more structured theoretical framework, a clearer explanation of how IH influences different dimensions of tourism impact, and a discussion on policy implications in a real-world context.
I encourage the authors to address the following revisions, which will enhance the clarity, rigor, and applicability of the study.

Comments to the Author
1. Abstract
The abstract effectively outlines the research focus, but it should quantify key findings.
Clearly state how IH impacts specific tourism impact dimensions (economic, ecological, social).
Highlight the practical applications of the findings (e.g., how IH can be leveraged to promote sustainable tourism practices).

Suggested Revision:
Include numerical values from the results to reinforce the study's empirical contributions.
Specify how IH differs from pro-social tendency in shaping attitudes toward tourism development.

2. Introduction
The introduction effectively frames the significance of the study, but the theoretical contribution needs stronger justification.
Clarify why intellectual humility is a key factor in sustainable tourism, beyond general pro-environmental behavior.
Provide real-world cases where IH or pro-social values influenced sustainable tourism policies (e.g., cases in eco-tourism destinations).

Suggested Revision:
Expand on why traditional sustainability frameworks have not sufficiently considered IH.
Highlight theoretical gaps in sustainable tourism research that this study addresses.
Include examples of destinations where policy decisions were influenced by visitor attitudes toward sustainability.

3. Literature Review
The literature review adequately covers IH and pro-environmental behavior, but it should be better structured to clarify the relationship between IH and tourism attitudes.
The role of IH in decision-making could be further elaborated.
The stakeholder theory justification is valid, but the connection to IH should be strengthened.

Suggested Revision:
Clearly define how IH differs from Honesty-Humility in influencing sustainable tourism attitudes.
Incorporate recent literature (post-2020) on IH and environmentalism to strengthen the theoretical foundation.
Discuss the limitations of previous studies on pro-social behavior and tourism sustainability.

4. Methodology
While the methodology section is generally well-presented, a more detailed explanation of the survey procedure and data collection process would enhance clarity. 

Suggested Revision:
Specifically, the criteria for sample selection and the composition of survey items should be elaborated. Additionally, a clearer description of how common method variance was controlled is needed.

5. Results and Discussion
The results section presents key findings effectively, but the discussion of theoretical implications needs refinement.
The study partially supports the role of IH in sustainable tourism attitudes—why were some hypotheses only partially supported?
Provide comparisons with existing literature to contextualize the findings.

Suggested Revision:
Clearly explain why IH influenced negative ecological impact but not economic or social impacts.
Discuss whether different tourism contexts (e.g., nature tourism vs. urban tourism) might yield different results.
Compare results with previous sustainable tourism and environmental psychology studies.

6. Theoretical Implications
The study contributes to both sustainable tourism and personality psychology, but its theoretical impact could be articulated more strongly.
How does IH refine existing sustainable tourism models?
How does this research contribute to the broader discourse on intellectual virtues in sustainability decision-making?

Suggested Revision:
Discuss how IH bridges gaps between pro-environmental behavior and sustainability policy.
Explain why IH is a unique predictor compared to traditional environmental concern models.
Emphasize potential cross-disciplinary applications (e.g., environmental psychology, business ethics, and sustainability studies).

7. Practical Implications
The study suggests that IH and pro-social tendency could inform tourism policies, but practical applications need to be clearer.
How can destination managers leverage IH-related interventions to promote sustainable tourism?

Suggested Revision:
Provide specific policy recommendations, such as:
How IH could be incorporated into tourism marketing or education campaigns.
How tourism stakeholders (e.g., local governments, businesses) can use insights from IH to develop sustainability strategies.
Examples of successful sustainable tourism policies where visitor attitudes played a role.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is generally comprehensible, but some sentences are complex or ambiguous. Improving sentence clarity and refining academic expressions would enhance readability and ensure a more polished presentation.

1.Example of a complex sentence:
"Intellectual humility as a virtue suggests that a golden mean can be sought between two extremes, wherein denial of climate change and its negative impact on the environment stands at one end, while the overemphasis on the negative consequences of climate change stands at the other."

Issues:
The sentence is long and contains multiple ideas, making it difficult to follow.
The phrase "wherein denial of climate change and its negative impact on the environment stands at one end" could be restructured for clarity.

2. Example of an ambiguous sentence:
"The role of IH in sustainable tourism is an important area that is underexplored, particularly in its relation to ecological, economic, and social aspects, which have different influences depending on contextual factors that have not been adequately examined."

Issues:
The phrase "which have different influences depending on contextual factors" is vague and could be misinterpreted.
It is unclear which aspects (IH or sustainable tourism) are being influenced by the contextual factors.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your comments and guided revisions. We are humbled by your thoughtful and relevant yet rigorous review and hope that we have sufficiently addressed all of your comments. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for thoroughly revising the manuscript. I appreciate that you have addressed most of my comments, including the expansion of the theoretical framework, the inclusion of more recent literature, a more detailed description of the methodology (especially SEM and CMV control), and a clearer discussion of the results. Your revision has significantly strengthened both the scientific contribution and the overall structure of the paper.

I recommend a minor revision of the conclusion—specifically, to summarize the key findings more clearly and explicitly link them to the research objectives and SDG 13.

Overall, I consider the manuscript suitable for acceptance in its current form, and I view the comment on the conclusion as a recommendation for improvement, not as a condition for acceptance.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Thank you for thoroughly revising the manuscript. I appreciate that you have addressed most of my comments, including the expansion of the theoretical framework, the inclusion of more recent literature, a more detailed description of the methodology (especially SEM and CMV control), and a clearer discussion of the results. Your revision has significantly strengthened both the scientific contribution and the overall structure of the paper.

I recommend a minor revision of the conclusion—specifically, to summarize the key findings more clearly and explicitly link them to the research objectives and SDG 13.

Response: Thank you for the helpful feedback. To provide readers with key takeaways, we've summarized our key findings and their link to SDG 13. Our conclusions are now as follows:

Our study was among the first to examine the role of intellectual humility in sustainable tourism development. Intellectually humble and prosocial individuals' heightened perception of travel's negative ecological impact suggests perceived harm drives stronger support for climate-mitigating policies and destination choices than perceived benefit based on loss aversion principle. The observed reduction in the significance of IH correlates with tourism development attitudes after controlling for common method variance underscores the potential for spurious relationships in studies relying on single-source data. We caution researchers that seemingly significant associations between variables under study might be inflated by methodological biases. Therefore, future research seeking to identify reliable psychological predictors of support for climate-mitigating tourism policies and behaviors under SDG 13 must rigorously address common method variance to ensure that observed relationships are robust and not artifacts of data collection methods. This methodological rigor is crucial for building a reliable evidence base to inform effective strategies for achieving climate action in tourism.

Whereas our study raises more questions than answers, we hope to stimulate researchers to replicate our results and expand the scope of our study to include not only attitudes towards tourism development but also the supporting behaviors related to sustainable tourism policies. We are optimistic that this study is an important step toward building a foundation for future inquiries at the intersection of environmental factors and individual characteristics, ultimately contributing to the broader United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Specifically, by highlighting the importance of cultivating intellectual humility among and between tourism stakeholders, our study directly addresses SDG 13: Climate Action. Recognizing that combating climate change and its impacts requires collective effort, our research offers a preliminary insight into how fostering intellectual humility can shape more sustainable destination choices, paving the way for a transition from individual awareness to individual and collective action in mitigating their global climate change impact.

 

Overall, I consider the manuscript suitable for acceptance in its current form, and I view the comment on the conclusion as a recommendation for improvement, not as a condition for acceptance.

Response: Thank you so much for your supportive comments without which we would not have been able to strengthen our manuscript. We are humbled by your recommendation for acceptance of our manuscript.

Reference

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1685855

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This revised manuscript demonstrates clear improvement in both theoretical articulation and methodological rigor. The authors have made meaningful revisions in response to the initial review comments, particularly by elaborating on the theoretical relevance of intellectual humility (IH) and pro-social tendency, clarifying the methodological details of the study, and partially strengthening the discussion of implications.

The inclusion of bifactor CFA to address common method variance, detailed description of sample characteristics and data collection, and the improved conceptual distinction between IH and Honesty-Humility notably enhance the manuscript's academic credibility. The theoretical integration of virtue ethics, stakeholder theory, and regenerative tourism also provides a solid interdisciplinary framework.

However, some areas could still benefit from further refinement, especially in:

• Providing more concrete policy examples where IH has influenced sustainable tourism outcomes.

• Expanding on the practical implications for tourism managers and policymakers (e.g., IH-based interventions, public campaigns, or stakeholder training strategies).

• Offering richer comparative insights by linking the findings to existing sustainable tourism or environmental psychology literature.

Despite these remaining opportunities for enhancement, the manuscript makes a valuable and novel contribution by introducing intellectual humility as a psychological virtue into the sustainable tourism discourse and bridging it with global climate action goals (SDG 13).

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This revised manuscript demonstrates clear improvement in both theoretical articulation and methodological rigor. The authors have made meaningful revisions in response to the initial review comments, particularly by elaborating on the theoretical relevance of intellectual humility (IH) and pro-social tendency, clarifying the methodological details of the study, and partially strengthening the discussion of implications.

The inclusion of bifactor CFA to address common method variance, detailed description of sample characteristics and data collection, and the improved conceptual distinction between IH and Honesty-Humility notably enhance the manuscript's academic credibility. The theoretical integration of virtue ethics, stakeholder theory, and regenerative tourism also provides a solid interdisciplinary framework.

However, some areas could still benefit from further refinement, especially in:

• Providing more concrete policy examples where IH has influenced sustainable tourism outcomes.

Response: To our knowledge, there are no published studies that examined the role of IH in affecting sustainable tourism policy making in outcomes. Therefore, in the revision, we added a discussion based on prior research on shaping destination choice that we hope to serve as a foundation on which to introduce IH at the individual and collective levels to influence sustainable tourism outcomes such as destination choices. We hope our revised addition, which can be found on p. 3 in the introduction, satisfies your concern.

• Expanding on the practical implications for tourism managers and policymakers (e.g., IH-based interventions, public campaigns, or stakeholder training strategies).

Response: Thank you for your guided feedback. In the revision, we provided several metacognitive interventions proven to be effective in fostering IH in higher education and community development contexts. Specifically, several IH-based interventions are now included in the revision. First, to foster IH at the individual level, several metacognitive interventions found to be effective in building IH in higher education (e.g., Meagher et al., 2019; Porter & Schumann, 2018) can be incorporated in tourism management training (e.g., self-reflection on one’s own knowledge, reflecting on past mistakes and learning, perspective-taking exercise, and constructive dialogues). To create an intellectually humble environment, policymakers and tourism managers are recommended to adopt methods for scaffolding collective IH such as anonymous balloting and deliberative polling to promote broad participation and generate productive discussions on politically polarizing topics such as climate change and its impact. Then norms and systems of accountability should be established to hold all participants accountable for their contributions and for collective outcomes. This system of accountability is supposed to facilitate greater reflection in individuals and constructive criticism between individual stakeholders (Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2025).

• Offering richer comparative insights by linking the findings to existing sustainable tourism or environmental psychology literature.

Response: Thank you for your helpful feedback. In the revision, we added a paragraph in which we further strengthened the link between existing sustainable tourism and environmental psychology studies to our study. Specifically, we mentioned that our study findings extended prior research (e.g., Jamal & Getz, 1995; Bichler & Lösch, 2019) in recognizing the legitimacy and importance of diverse stakeholders in the collaborative governance process of sustainable tourism. In addition, research in environmental psychology showed that when stakeholders viewed their concerns had been heard and valued, they were found to be more likely to engage in sustainable tourism practices (e.g., Ayers et al., 2023). Intellectual humility is key for successful adaptive management (Walters & Holling, 1990) to engage tourists in avoiding dysfunctional behavior due to lack of knowledge and egocentricity (Chebli et al., 2024). Because destination choice was found to have more potential in reducing emissions compared to transport mode choice (Kamb et al., 2021), our findings suggest that local government policies should promote domestic travel destinations to reduce emission from air travel.  

Despite these remaining opportunities for enhancement, the manuscript makes a valuable and novel contribution by introducing intellectual humility as a psychological virtue into the sustainable tourism discourse and bridging it with global climate action goals (SDG 13).

Response: Thank you very much for your encouragement and supportive comments without which we would not have been able to improve our manuscript. We are truly humbled by your endorsement.

References

Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., Pärnamets, P., Bland, S., Astola, M., Cichocka, A., de Ridder, J., Mercier, H., Meyer, M., O’Connor, C., Porter, T., Tanesini, A., Alfano, M., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2025). Toward an understanding of collective intellectual humility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2024.09.006

Walters, C. J., & Holling, C. S. (1990). Large-Scale Management Experiments and Learning by Doing. Ecology, 71(6), 2060-2068 https://doi.org/10.2307/1938620