The Impact of Disaster of a National Airline on the Nation’s Tourism: An Empirical Investigation
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Conceptual Model and Hypotheses
2.1. Model Conceptualization Process
2.1.1. The Exploratory Study
- There was a perceived risk (i.e., physical risk) in visiting Malaysia because of news about a Chinese tourist being kidnapped in Sabah, Malaysia. This perceived risk negatively the subjects’ affected attitude toward visiting Malaysia and intention to visit Malaysia.
- There was still a perceived risk (i.e., physical risk) in flying Malaysia Airlines because of the MH370 incident. This perceived risk negatively affected the subjects’ attitude toward flying Malaysia Airlines to Malaysia and intention to fly Malaysia Airlines.
- Favorable attitude toward flying Malaysia Airlines seems to reduce perceived risk in visiting Malaysia and increase the subjects’ positive attitude toward visiting Malaysia.
- The subjects’ subjective knowledge about the aviation/airlines and subjective knowledge about Malaysia seem to reduce perceived risk in flying Malaysia Airlines and perceived risk in visiting Malaysia, respectively.
- Perceived usefulness of (negative) public opinions about the Malaysia Airlines seems to affect and increase perceived risk in flying Malaysia Airlines and perceived risk in visiting Malaysia.
2.1.2. The Conceptual Frameworks
2.1.3. The Dual Mediation Model
2.2. Conceptual Model
2.2.1. Subjective Knowledge, Usefulness of Public Opinion, and Perceived Risk
Subjective Knowledge
Usefulness of Public Opinion
Perceived Risk
2.2.2. Perceived Risk, Attitude, and Purchase Intention
Attitude
Purchase intention
3. Methodology
3.1. Research Design
3.2. Sample and Data Collection
3.3. Operationalization/Measures
3.3.1. Subjective Knowledge about Aviation
3.3.2. Subjective Knowledge about Malaysia
3.3.3. Usefulness of Public Opinion about Malaysia Airlines
3.3.4. Perceived Risk of Flying Malaysia Airlines
3.3.5. Perceived Risk of Visiting Malaysia
3.3.6. Attitude toward Flying Malaysia Airlines
3.3.7. Attitude toward Visiting Malaysia
3.3.8. Intention to Fly Malaysia Airlines
3.3.9. Intention to Visit Malaysia
3.4. Data Analysis
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Measurement Model Results
4.1.1. Reliability Analysis
4.1.2. Validity Analysis
4.2. Structural Model Results
4.2.1. Model Fit
4.2.2. Hypothesis Testing
5. Conclusions and Implications
5.1. Theoretical Contribution and Managerial Implications
5.2. Limitations
5.3. Summary
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Construct | Adapted Scale | Scale Reference |
---|---|---|
Subjective knowledge about aviation |
| Flynn and Goldsmith (1999) |
Subjective knowledge about Malaysia |
| Flynn and Goldsmith (1999) |
Usefulness of public opinion |
| Davis (1989) |
Perceived risk of flying Malaysian airlines |
| Forsythe and Shi (2003) |
Perceived risk of visiting Malaysia |
| Forsythe and Shi (2003) |
Attitude toward flying Malaysian Airlines |
| Jang and Namkung (2009) |
Attitude toward visiting Malaysia |
| Jang and Namkung (2009) |
Intention to fly Malaysian Airlines |
| Jalilvand et al. (2012) |
Intention to visit Malaysia |
| Jalilvand et al. (2012) |
References
- Aviation benefits beyond border (n.d.). Available online: https://aviationbenefits.org/social-development/tourism/ (accessed on 24 November 2018).
- Lu, H. Interview: Malaysia ramps up efforts to attract Chinese tourists. Xinhuanet. 2017. Available online: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-10/13/c_136676857.htm (accessed on 13 October 2017).
- Toursim becomes Malaysia’s sixth economic pillar. 2015. Available online: http://my.xinhuanet.com/2015-08/04/c_128090838.htm (accessed on 12 February 2019).
- Jang, B. After two aviation disasters, Malaysia Airlines will struggle to survive. The Globe and Mail. 2014. Available online: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/after-two-aviation-disasters-malaysia-airlines-will-struggle-to-survive/article19669404/ (accessed on 17 July 2018).
- Zeithaml, V.A. Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J. Mark. 1988, 52, 2–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacKenzie, S.B.; Lutz, R.J.; Belch, G.E. The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. J. Mark. Res. 1986, 23, 130–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lutz, R.J.; Swasy, J.L. Integrating cognitive structure and cognitive response approaches to monitoring communications effects. Adv. Consum. Res. 1977, 4, 363–371. [Google Scholar]
- Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 19, 123–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wongpitch, S.; Minakan, N.; Powpaka, S.; Laohavichien, T. Effect of corporate social responsibility motives on purchase intention model: An extension. Kasetsart J. Soc. Sci. 2016, 37, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Homer, P.M. The mediating role of attitude toward the ad: Some additional evidence. J. Mark. Res. 1990, 27, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karson, E.J.; Fisher, R.J. Predicting intentions to return to the Web site: Extending the dual mediation hypothesis. J. Interact. Mark. 2005, 19, 2–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- López, I.; Ruiz, S. Explaining website effectiveness: The hedonic–utilitarian dual mediation hypothesis. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2011, 10, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldsmith, R.E.; Lafferty, B.A.; Newell, S.J. The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. J. Advert. 2000, 29, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alba, J.W. The effects of product knowledge on the comprehension, retention, and evaluation of product information. Adv. Consum. Res. 1983, 10, 577–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brucks, M. The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. J. Consum. Res. 1985, 12, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sujan, M. Consumer knowledge: Effects on evaluation strategies mediating consumer judgments. J. Consum. Res. 1985, 12, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, A.R.; Monroe, K.B. The moderating effect of prior knowledge on cue utilization in product evaluations. J. Consum. Res. 1988, 15, 253–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klerck, D.; Sweeney, J.C. The effect of knowledge type on consumer perceived risk and adoption of genetically modified foods. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadar, L.; Sood, S.; Fox, C.R. Subjective knowledge in consumer financial decisions. J. Mark. Res. 2013, 50, 303–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oh, K.; Abraham, L. Effect of knowledge on decision making in the context of organic cotton clothing. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2016, 40, 66–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, C.W.; Mothersbaugh, D.L.; Feick, L. Consumer knowledge assessment. J. Consum. Res. 1994, 21, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flynn, L.R.; Goldsmith, R.E. A short, reliable measure of subjective knowledge. J. Bus. Res. 1999, 46, 57–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cole, C.; Gaeth, G.; Chakraborty, G.; Levin, I. Exploring the relationships among self-reported knowledge, objective knowledge, product usage, and consumer decision making. In Advances in Consumer Research; Sherry, J.F., Sternthal, B., Eds.; Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT, USA, 1992; p. 191. ISBN 00989258. [Google Scholar]
- Raju, P.S.; Lonial, S.C.; Mangold, W.G. Differential effects of subjective knowledge, objective knowledge, and usage experience on decision making: An exploratory investigation. J. Consum. Psychol. 1995, 4, 153–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selnes, F.; Gronhaug, K. Subjective and objective measures of product knowledge contrasted. Adv. Consum. Res. 1986, 13, 67–71. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, H.J.; Han, D.H. Interaction between message framing and consumers’ prior subjective knowledge regarding food safety issues. Food Policy 2014, 44, 95–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fiske, C.A.; Luebbehusen, L.A.; Miyazaki, A.D.; Urbany, J.E. The relationship between knowledge and search: It depends. In Advances in Consumer Research; Allen, C.T., John, D.R., Eds.; Association for Consumer Research: Provo, UT, USA, 1994; Volume 21, pp. 43–50. ISBN 17444798. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, L.; Chen, L.; Wu, Z.; Zhang, S.; Song, H. Investigating young consumers’ purchasing intention of green housing in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moorman, C.; Diehl, K.; Brinberg, D.; Kidwell, B. Subjective knowledge, search locations, and consumer choice. J. Consum. Res. 2004, 31, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perrouty, J.F.; d’Hauteville, F.; Lockshin, L.S. The influence of wine attributes on region of origin equity: An analysis of the moderating effect of consumer’s perceived expertise. Agribusiness 2006, 22, 323–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, J.F.; Pereira, R.C.; Silva, A.A.; Mendes, A.O.; Carneiro, J.S. Sodium content in foods: Brazilian consumers’ opinions, subjective knowledge and purchase intent. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2017, 41, 735–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blackwell, R.D.; Miniard, P.W.; Engel, J.F. Consumer Behavior, 9th ed.; Harcourt College Publishers: Fort Worth, TX, USA, 2001; ISBN 9780324271973. [Google Scholar]
- East, R.; Hammond, K.; Lomax, W. Measuring the impact of positive and negative word of mouth on brand purchase probability. Int. J. Res. Mark. 2008, 25, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paswan, A.K.; Kantamneni, S.P. Public opinion and franchising in an emerging market. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2004, 16, 46–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sparks, B.A.; Browning, V. The impact of online reviews on hotel booking intentions and perception of trust. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 1310–1323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrero, A.; Martín, H.S.; Hernández, J.M. How online search behavior is influenced by user-generated content on review websites and hotel interactive websites. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 1573–1597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989, 13, 319–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perception, and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Man–Mach. Stud. 1993, 38, 475–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valkenburg, P.M.; Peter, J. Preadolescents’ and adolescents’ online communication and their closeness to friends. Dev. Psychol. 2007, 43, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Pthanasthassis, A.; Knolle, F. Exploring the adoption and processing of online holiday reviews: A grounded theory approach. Tour. Manag. 2011, 32, 215–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casaló, L.V.; Flavián, C.; Guinalíu, M.; Ekinci, Y. Avoiding the dark side of positive online consumer reviews: Enhancing its usefulness for high risk-averse travelers. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 1829–1835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bauer, R.A. Consumer behavior as risk taking. In Proceedings of the 43rd National Conference of the American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, USA, June 1960; pp. 389–398. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, V.W. Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. Eur. J. Mark. 1999, 33, 163–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Antony, S.; Lin, Z.; Xu, B. Determinants of escrow service adoption in consumer-to-consumer online auction market: An experimental study. Decis. Support Syst. 2006, 42, 1889–1900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappas, N. Marketing strategies, perceived risks, and consumer trust in online buying behaviour. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 29, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacoby, J.; Kaplan, L.B. The Components of perceived risk. In Proceedings of the Third Annual Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Chicago, IL, USA, November 1972; pp. 382–393. [Google Scholar]
- Mitchell, A.A.; Olson, J.C. Are product attribute beliefs the only mediator of advertising effects on brand attitude? J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 318–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980; ISBN 9780139364358. [Google Scholar]
- Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975; ISBN 0201020890. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, P.C.; Wang, Y.C. The influences of electronic word-of-mouth message appeal and message source credibility on brand attitude. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2011, 23, 448–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keller, K.L.; Lehmann, D.R. Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Mark. Sci. 2006, 25, 740–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kudeshia, C.; Kumar, A. Social eWOM: Does it affect the brand attitude and purchase intention of brands? Manag. Res. Rev. 2017, 40, 310–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Summers, T.A.; Belleau, B.D.; Xu, Y. Predicting purchase intention of a controversial luxury apparel product. J. Fash. Mark. Manag. 2006, 10, 405–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abzari, M.; Ghassemi, R.A.; Vosta, L.N. Analysing the effect of social media on brand attitude and purchase intention: The case of Iran Khodro company. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 143, 822–826. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ariffin, S.K.; Mohan, T.; Goh, Y.N. Influence of consumers’ perceived risk on consumers’ online purchase intention. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2018, 12, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ting, H.; de Run, E.C. Attitude towards advertising: A young generation cohort’s perspective. Asian J. Bus. Res. 2015, 5, 69–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, G.C.C. Users’ adoption of mobile applications: Product type and message framing’s moderating effect. J. Bus. Res. 2015, 68, 2317–2321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duarte, P.; Amaro, S. An integrative model of consumers’ intentions to purchase travel online. Tour. Manag. 2015, 46, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Loehlin, J.C. Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2004; ISBN 9780805849103. [Google Scholar]
- Forsythe, S.M.; Shi, B. Consumer patronage and risk perceptions in Internet shopping. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 867–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jang, S.; Namkung, Y. Perceived quality, emotions, and behavior Intentions: Application of an extended Mehrabian-Russell model to restaurants. J. Bus. Res. 2009, 62, 451–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jalilvand, M.R.; Samiei, N.; Dini, B.; Manzari, P.Y. Examining the structural relationships of electronic word of mouth, destination image, tourist attitude toward destination and travel intention: An integrated approach. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2012, 1, 134–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. PRELIS: A Program for Multivariate Data Screening and Data Summarization, 2nd ed.; Scientific Software, Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 1988; ISBN 1563211858. [Google Scholar]
- Jöreskog, K.G.; Sörbom, D. Lisrel 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language; Scientific Software, Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 1993; ISBN 0805814418. [Google Scholar]
- Powpaka, S. How market orientation affects female service employees in Thailand. J. Bus. Res. 2006, 59, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978; ISBN 9781441910059. [Google Scholar]
- Bagozzi, R. Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1981, 41, 607–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bearden, W.O.; Sharma, S.; Teel, J.E. Sample size effects upon Chi-Square and other statistics used in evaluating causal models. J. Mark. Res. 1982, 19, 425–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentler, P.M.; Bonett, D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol. Bull. 1980, 88, 588–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentler, P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol. Bull. 1990, 107, 238–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bollen, K.A. A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociol. Methods Res. 1989, 17, 303–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Demographic Categories | Frequency | % |
---|---|---|
Gender | ||
Male | 170 | 54.3 |
Female | 143 | 45.7 |
Age | ||
Under 18 or 18 | 1 | 0.3 |
19-29 | 227 | 72.5 |
30-39 | 71 | 22.7 |
40-49 | 11 | 3.5 |
50-59 | 3 | 1.0 |
Marital status | ||
Single | 189 | 60.4 |
Cohabit | 25 | 8.0 |
Married | 95 | 30.4 |
Other | 4 | 1.3 |
Educational level | ||
Secondary school | 2 | 0.6 |
College or university | 48 | 15.3 |
University graduate | 76 | 24.3 |
Postgraduate and above | 187 | 59.7 |
Annual income (RMB) | ||
Under 20,000 | 131 | 41.9 |
20,000–39,999 | 20 | 6.4 |
40,000–59,999 | 20 | 6.4 |
60,000–79,999 | 34 | 10.9 |
80,000–99,999 | 29 | 9.3 |
100,000 or more | 79 | 25.2 |
Occupation | ||
Student | 134 | 42.8 |
Engineer | 19 | 6.1 |
Business | 51 | 16.3 |
Education | 37 | 11.8 |
Medicine | 10 | 3.2 |
Information technology | 17 | 5.4 |
Design | 4 | 1.3 |
Scientist | 8 | 2.6 |
Executive | 18 | 5.8 |
Self-employed | 6 | 1.9 |
Other | 9 | 2.9 |
Constructs and Indicators | Standardized Factor Loadings | Reliability/Item R2 | Proportion of Variance Extracted |
---|---|---|---|
Subjective Knowledge-Aviation (ξ1) | 0.815 | 0.6000 | |
X1 (SUBJKNOWL-AVIATION 1) | 0.71 a,b | 0.51 | |
X2 (SUBJKNOWL-AVIATION 2) | 0.83 b | 0.69 | |
X3 (SUBJKNOWL-AVIATION 3) | 0.77 b | 0.60 | |
Usefulness of Public Opinion (ξ2) | 0.875 | 0.6375 | |
X4 (USEFULNESS 1) | 0.82 a,b | 0.67 | |
X5 (USEFULNESS 2) | 0.81 b | 0.66 | |
X6 (USEFULNESS 3) | 0.82 b | 0.67 | |
X7 (USEFULNESS 4) | 0.74 b | 0.55 | |
Subjective Knowledge-Malaysia (ξ3) | 0.887 | 0.7333 | |
X8 (SUBJKNOWL-MALAYSIA 1) | 0.80 a,b | 0.64 | |
X9 (SUBJKNOWL-MALAYSIA 2) | 0.90 b | 0.82 | |
X10 (SUBJKNOWL-MALAYSIA 3) | 0.86 b | 0.74 | |
Perceived Risk-Flying Malaysia Airlines (η1) | 0.899 | 0.8200 | |
Y1 (RISK-FLYING MS 1) | 0.86 a,b | 0.74 | |
Y2 (RISK-FLYING MS 2) | 0.95 b | 0.90 | |
Perceived Risk-Visiting Malaysia (η2) | 0.851 | 0.7450 | |
Y3 (RISK-VISTING MALAYSIA 1) | 0.83 a,b | 0.69 | |
Y4 (RISK-VISTING MALAYSIA 2) | 0.89 b | 0.80 | |
Attitude toward Flying Malaysia Airlines (η3) | 0.774 | 0.5500 | |
Y5 (ATTITUDE-FLYING MS 1) | 0.67 a,b | 0.45 | |
Y6 (ATTITUDE-FLYING MS 2) | 0.89 b | 0.79 | |
Y7 (ATTITUDE-FLYING MS 3) | 0.64 b | 0.41 | |
Attitude toward Visiting Malaysia (η4) | 0.903 | 0.7533 | |
Y8 (ATTIUTDE-VIST MALAYSIA 1) | 0.83 a,b | 0.68 | |
Y9 (ATTIUTDE-VIST MALAYSIA 2) | 0.88 b | 0.82 | |
Y10 (ATTIUTDE-VIST MALAYSIA 3) | 0.89 b | 0.78 | |
Intention-Flying Malaysia Airlines (η5) | 0.896 | 0.7400 | |
Y11 (INTENTION-FLYING MS 1) | 0.85 a,b | 0.73 | |
Y12 (INTENTION-FLYING MS 2) | 0.82 b | 0.67 | |
Y13 (INTENTION-FLYING MS 3) | 0.92 b | 0.85 | |
Intention-Visiting Malaysia (η6) | 0.897 | 0.7633 | |
Y14 (INTENTION-VISIT MALAYSIA 1) | 0.90 a,b | 0.83 | |
Y15 (INTENTION-VISIT MALAYSIA 2) | 0.77 b | 0.60 | |
Y16 (INTENTION-VISIT MALAYSIA 3) | 0.93 b | 0.87 |
Latent Variables | POVEI | RISK-A | RISK-M | A-FM | A-VM | BI-FM | BI-VM | SK-A | SK-M | U-PO |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RISK-A | 0.8200 | 1.00 | ||||||||
RISK-M | 0.7450 | 0.58 | 1.00 | |||||||
A-FM | 0.5500 | −0.69 | −0.58 | 1.00 | ||||||
A-VM | 0.7533 | −0.40 | −0.55 | 0.47 | 1.00 | |||||
BI-FM | 0.7400 | −0.38 | −0.32 | 0.55 | 0.25 | 1.00 | ||||
BI-VM | 0.7633 | −0.30 | −0.32 | 0.40 | 0.43 | 0.54 | 1.00 | |||
SK-A | 0.6000 | 0.01 | −0.09 | −0.01 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 1.00 | ||
SK-M | 0.7333 | 0.00 | −0.14 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.67 | 1.00 | |
U-PO | 0.6375 | 0.28 | 0.21 | −0.19 | −0.13 | −0.11 | −0.09 | 0.00 | −0.04 | 1.00 |
- RISK-A is Perceived Risk of Flying Malaysia Airlines
- RISK-M is Perceived Risk of Visiting Malaysia
- A-FM is Attitude towards Flying Malaysia Airlines
- A-VM is Attitude towards Visiting Malaysia
- BI-FM is Intention to Fly Malaysia Airlines
- BI-VM is Intention to Visit Malaysia
- SK-A is Subjective Knowledge about Aviation
- SK-M is Subjective Knowledge about Malaysia
- U-Op is Usefulness of Public Opinion
Independent Construct | Dependent Construct | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Perceived Risk of Flying Malaysia Airlines | Perceived Risk of Visiting Malaysia | Attitude toward Flying Malaysia Airlines | Attitude toward Visiting Malaysia | Intention to Fly Malaysia Airlines | Intention to Visit Malaysia | |
Subjective Knowledge about Aviation | 0.015n.s. | - | - | - | - | - |
Subjective Knowledge about Malaysia | - | −0.12b | - | - | - | - |
Usefulness of Public Opinion | 0.34a | 0.052n.s. | - | - | - | - |
Perceived Risk of Flying Malaysia Airlines | - | 0.28a | −0.49a | - | - | - |
Perceived Risk of Visiting Malaysia | - | - | - | −0.41a | - | - |
Attitude toward Flying Malaysia Airlines | - | −0.43a | - | 0.25b | 0.85a | - |
Attitude toward Visiting Malaysia | - | - | - | - | - | 0.43a |
Intention to Fly Malaysia Airlines | - | - | - | - | - | 0.48a |
R2 | 0.079 | 0.42 | 0.48 | 0.34 | 0.3 | 0.38 |
Chi-square | 723.55 | |||||
Degree of freedom | 284 | |||||
p-value | 0 | |||||
NFI | 0.92 | |||||
CFI | 0.95 | |||||
IFI | 0.95 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fan, T.; Pu, B.; Powpaka, S.; Hao, L. The Impact of Disaster of a National Airline on the Nation’s Tourism: An Empirical Investigation. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051233
Fan T, Pu B, Powpaka S, Hao L. The Impact of Disaster of a National Airline on the Nation’s Tourism: An Empirical Investigation. Sustainability. 2019; 11(5):1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051233
Chicago/Turabian StyleFan, Ting, Bo Pu, Samart Powpaka, and Liaogang Hao. 2019. "The Impact of Disaster of a National Airline on the Nation’s Tourism: An Empirical Investigation" Sustainability 11, no. 5: 1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051233
APA StyleFan, T., Pu, B., Powpaka, S., & Hao, L. (2019). The Impact of Disaster of a National Airline on the Nation’s Tourism: An Empirical Investigation. Sustainability, 11(5), 1233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051233