PreprintPDF Available
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.


Content may be subject to copyright.
Cruise passengersrisk reduction strategies in the wake of COVID-19
Jennifer Holland
, Tim Mazzarol
,Georey N. Soutar
, Suellen Tapsall
Wendy A. Elliott
Brighton Business School, University of Brighton, Brighton, UK;
Suolk Business School, University of Suolk, Ipswich, UK;
Business School, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia;
Division of Education and Students, University of
Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia
The COVID-19 pandemic devastated the cruise sector with an initial global shutdown
and ongoing patchy resumption, widespread reporting of virus transmission onboard
and billions of dollars in economic losses. This study explores how COVID-19 has
impacted Australian and UK consumersrisk perceptions, revealing cruises are no
longer considered safe. Consumers are more negative about, and less willing to,
cruise. Cluster and Leximancer analyses identied ve distinct market segments
dierentiated by the extent of travel risk they perceived. Specic risk reduction
strategies are identied and include risk mitigation, use of risk relievers, and risk
Risk; tourism; risk reduction;
cruise ship; COVID-19; cruise
The COVID-19 pandemic devastated global tourism,
with the cruise sector particularly aected. The pan-
demic had signicant impact on ocean cruising as
cruise operations were suspended for months with
multi-billion-dollar nancial losses, the shedding of
tens of thousands of jobs, with some cruise lines
going out of business, others restructuring and
renancing and the sale of ships (Cruise Lines Inter-
national Association [CLIA], 2020a; Levin, 2020). The
largest corporation, Carnival Cruise Lines, had to
secure an investment loan of $26.3bn after losses
of $10bn (BBC, 2021). The cruise sector was particu-
larly aected due to high infection rates among
crew and passengers (Mizumoto & Chowell, 2020;
Moriarty et al., 2020; Rocklöv et al., 2020), and
experienced unprecedented cancelations and econ-
omic losses (Chen et al., 2021). Thousands of passen-
gers were stranded onboard, as cruise ships were
held in quarantine or refused entry to ports as
borders closed. Prior to the pandemic, the cruise
sector had experienced robust growth and 2020
should have been a record year, with 32 million pas-
sengers expected to sail (CLIA, 2019b,2020b).
Cruise ships have been negatively associated with
COVID-19 after a large cluster of cases were conrmed
onboard several ships, including the Diamond Prin-
cess, the Ruby Princess, and the Grand Princess (Ito
et al., 2020). There were at least 700 conrmed cases
of COVID-19 on the Diamond Princess, which related
to 14 deaths (Leer & Hogan, 2020). Globally, more
than 50 cruise ships reported conrmed cases of
COVID-19, with at least 83 deaths (Dolven et al.,
2020). In Australia, risk perceptions were particularly
aected by the saga of the Ruby Princess, which
would be linked to more than 1221 cases and 28
deaths (Davies et al., 2020; Walker, 2020).
Prior to 2020, Australia was performing strongly in
the cruise travel sector, as cruising had become the
countrys fastest growing tourism sector (CLIA Austra-
lasia, 2018). Australia had a higher market penetration
than the rest of the world and was the only passenger
source market in which 1 in 17 people had cruised
(CLIA, 2019a;CLIA Australasia, 2018) with 1.35
million Australians cruising in 2019 (CLIA, 2020c).
© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and
is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Jennifer Holland Brighton Business School, University of Brighton, Mithras House, Lewes Road,
Brighton BN2 4AT, UK
Industry reports estimated the contribution of the
cruise sector to the Australian economy was worth
$5.2 billion in 2018 and was an increase of 11%
from the previous nancial year (CLIA, 2019b). The
Australian government ceased all cruise travel from
March 2020 and it was anticipated there would be
no resumption of cruising in Australian waters
before 2022 at the earliest, with ocials continuing
to advise cruise travel posed an unacceptable public
health risk (Holland et al., 2021; Seatrade Cruise
News, 2021a).
The UK had also enjoyed increasing demand for
cruising, with more cruise lines operating in that
region. In 2019 a record two million passengers
cruised from the UK and Ireland, making this the
third largest passenger source market after the
United States and Germany (CLIA, 2020c). Signi-
cantly, the UK represents 28% of cruise passengers
in Europe (Business Research & Economic Advisors
[BREA], 2019) and generated £10 billion for the UK
economy in 2019 (BREA, 2020). The UK ceased cruise
operations in March 2020 and restarted at a reduced
capacity in May 2021 (Seatrade Cruise News, 2021b).
Cruise lines operating in the UK must follow stringent
protocols developed by the UK Chamber of Shipping
and CLIA (UK Chamber of Shipping, 2020). Australia
and the UK were selected as research sites due to
the signicant impact of the pandemic on the cruise
sector in these regions.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlights potential risks
involved in travel, and how risk perceptions,
whether real or imagined, can signicantly impact
travel decisions (Chen et al., 2021; Mizrachi & Fuchs,
2016; Neuburger & Egger, 2021). Understanding how
tourists manage risk is important as perceived risk
inuences travel decisions including destination
choice, travel intentions, information search and pre-
purchase behaviour (Fuchs & Reichel, 2011; Kim
et al., 2016; Quintal et al., 2010; Reisinger &
Mavondo, 2005; Yang & Nair, 2014). This issue is par-
ticularly important, as travel products are risky due
to their intangibility, high cost and complexity (Lin
et al., 2009), vulnerable to crises and disasters (Chen
et al., 2021) with many researchers acknowledging
that risk is an unavoidable part of travel (Williams &
Baláž,2013; Yang et al., 2017).
Tourists, as consumers, develop strategies to reduce
risk and manage uncertainty to a tolerable level (Bauer,
1960;Mizrachi&Fuchs,2016). However, there is a gap
in our understanding of how risk perceptions inuence
cruise decision-making, with scholars calling for more
research on this topic (Holland, 2020; Le & Arcodia,
2018), particularly in relation to risk-reduction
because of COVID-19 (Quintal et al., 2021).
More research is needed to better understand how
COVID-19 may have changed how risk is perceived
and managed when people consider a cruise
holiday. Studies are emerging addressing this impor-
tant topic, including work by Quintal et al. (2021)
and Yuen et al. (2021) examining the impact of
COVID-19 on cruise travel. Potential cruisers need to
consider aspects such as health protocols, outbreak
prevention plans, onboard cleaning procedures,
social distancing measures and health screenings
prior to boarding. Additionally, potential cruisers
may need to consider implications of possible out-
breaks during a cruise, which may result in them
being quarantined in their cabin. Cruises may be ter-
minated should there be an outbreak on the ship or
in the region that the cruise ship is visiting, resulting
in a need to return home suddenly. All of this adds
to the complexity and uncertainty associated with
the decision to cruise and what actions can be taken
to mitigate the risks involved. Consequently, the
present study was undertaken to investigate how
risk perceptions of ocean cruising have changed
because of the pandemic, to identify risk reduction
strategies cruisers might use to manage risk.
Literature review
Touristsrisk perceptions are inuenced by preference
for familiarity or novelty (Cohen, 1972; Lepp & Gibson,
2003; Reichel et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2019), chrono-
logical or cognitive age (Amatulli et al., 2015; Guido
et al., 2014), subjective knowledge (Perpiña et al.,
2021) and travel experience (Karl et al., 2020; Moraka-
bati et al., 2012; Roehl & Fesenmaier, 1992). There has
been debate about whether gender inuences risk
perceptions (Jordan & Gibson, 2005; Lepp & Gibson,
2003; Li et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2017), with results
being inconclusive. An individuals tolerance level
for risk may also be inuenced by their national
culture (Fuchs & Reichel, 2004; Kozak et al., 2007),
social status, educational level, motivation, or person-
ality attributes (Breakwell, 2014; Hasan et al., 2017;
Korstanje, 2011; Le & Arcodia, 2018) or prior travel
experience (Bowen et al., 2014; Kozak et al., 2007).
Other factors seem to be biological in origin, such as
DNA or neural chemistry (Ropeik, 2004), or external
including physical and ideological contexts (Break-
well, 2014; Douglas & Wildavsky, 1982; Korstanje,
2011). However, past research has been very limited in
relation to touristsrisk perceptions of ocean cruising.
Such research seems particularly important at this
time, as the cruise sector has, arguably, been devas-
tated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Le and Arcodia (2018) are, to date, the only
researchers to develop a framework for investigating
risk perceptions for cruise passengers. The framework
identied ve cruise-related risks: infection outbreaks,
sexually transmissible infections, motion sickness,
cruise accidents, and terrorism, piracy, crime.
Holland (2020) explored cruiser and non-cruiser
health and safety risk perceptions of cruising;
nding that perceived risk inuenced tourist
decision-making. In that study, non-cruisers perceived
more risk of getting sick onboard, while cruisers
reported developing strategies to minimise getting
sick, such as handwashing. Overall, both cruisers and
non-cruisers perceived a cruise as a safe holiday but
worried about health aspects.
Liu-Lastres et al. (2019) investigated customer
responses to communication given by a cruise line
about a theoretical norovirus outbreak, specically
looking at how communication inuenced infor-
mation search behaviour, safety perceptions and
cruise travel intentions. They found eective and
accurate information helped passengers feel safer
and better able to cope with a potential outbreak.
Their study also highlighted the importance of tailor-
ing messages to dierent audiences and suggested
emotion aected how messages were interpreted.
Risk handling
If an individual consumers risk tolerance is surpassed,
the consumer will abandon the purchase or take steps
to mitigate the risk in purchasing a service or product
(Li et al., 2020; Mitchell, 1999; Roselius, 1971; Taylor,
1974; Wai et al., 2019). Risk reduction strategies
include the use of risk relievers, risk mitigation and
risk avoidance. A risk reliever is a device or action,
initiated by a buyer or seller, used to reduce risk by
decreasing the probability the purchase will fail or
to shift the perceived loss to a level tolerable for the
consumer (Roselius, 1971). Examples of this include
choosing well-known brands, preferencing brands
used in the past, selecting products tested by govern-
ment, recommended by friends or family, or endorsed
by a celebrity or expert. Risk mitigation refers to
eorts to reduce loss or the consequences of unex-
pected outcomes (Fang et al., 2014), and can
include buying from reputable sources, buying
brands that have a money-back guarantee. Risk avoid-
ance refers to purchasing only when certain of the
outcome (Quintal et al., 2010).
Touristsrisk handling
Tourists engage in additional risk reduction strategies,
such as conducting detailed information searches (Lee
et al., 2019; Quintal et al., 2021), using advice from
family and friends, consulting those who have experi-
ence in relevant destinations and modifying the time
spent in each destination (Fuchs & Reichel, 2011; Lin
et al., 2009; Lo et al., 2011; Mansfeld et al., 2016; Miz-
rachi & Fuchs, 2016). To reduce risk they might book
through travel agents, travel in groups, book
packages, purchase travel insurance or book shorter
trips (Chien et al., 2017; Matiza, 2020; Nugraha et al.,
2020), get vaccinated and take medical precautions
(Yeung & Yee, 2020). The most signicant way tourists
handle risk is through destination avoidance (Nugraha
et al., 2016; Promsivapallop & Kannaovakun, 2018;
Quintal et al., 2010; Sönmez & Graefe, 1998).
However, an emphasis on destination avoidance fails
to adequately explain how tourists manage risk for
ocean cruises that may visit several destinations and
fails to recognise the complex decision-making
involved when choosing a cruise holiday.
Risk handling in ocean cruising
Prior to COVID-19, research on risk reduction strategies
in ocean cruise was limited to examining information
search (De La Vina & Ford, 2001; Petrick et al., 2007)
or brand loyalty. Studies have found cruise passengers
often choose the same brand based on previous
experience and familiarity (Hung & Petrick, 2011;Li&
Petrick, 2008; Petrick et al., 2007). Research has
shown cruise consumers were notable for their
loyalty to the cruise experience, with 62% of cruise pas-
sengers repeat cruising (see CLIA, 2016; Sun et al.,
2018), even after experiencing H1N1 or norovirus out-
breaks (Holland, 2020). CLIA (2021)foundconcerns
about COVID-19 had not aected cruisers, with two
out of three cruisers saying they planned to cruise
again in the next year or two. Other research supports
this, noting repeat cruisers have said they feel safe
onboard and have condence in and trust the cruise
lines to look after them (Bowen et al., 2014; Holland,
2020). This supports the wider tourist risk literature,
which found prior travel experience may inuence
risk perceptions (see Fuchs & Reichel, 2011; Kim et al.,
2016; Lepp & Gibson, 2003;Mansfeldetal.,2016;Shar-
ifpour et al., 2014;Tan&Wu,2016; Williams & Baláž,
2013). Sharifpour et al. (2014) suggested travel experi-
ence increased a tourists cumulative knowledge and
added information through experiences, while
Sönmez and Graefe (1998) found travel experience to
a destination decreased the perception of risk for
travel to that destination. Similarly, Henthorne et al.
(2013)foundrst-time cruisers experienced more dis-
comfort ashore than did repeat cruisers. Thus, cruise
passengers may perceive less risk when they cruise
repeatedly, as they are familiar with cruising and
know what to expect.
Prior cruise travel experience may reduce health
risk perceptions (Baker & Stockton, 2013; Holland,
2020; Liu et al., 2016). Notable studies include Baker
and Stocktons(2013) investigation of health percep-
tions and responses, suggesting (at that time) that
cruise passengers were not concerned about getting
sick and nding those who cruised more often took
precautions to avoid getting sick. These precautions
included consulting with their healthcare prac-
titioners before cruising and taking personal
measures to prevent getting sick, providing evidence
that past cruise experience impacted risk perceptions.
Liu et al. (2016) found cruise passengersperceived
self-ecacy moderated the relationship between the
perceived risk of contracting norovirus and the per-
ceived overall safety of cruising. In other words, tour-
ists with more cruise experience take more
preventative steps to protect themselves, increasing
their condence in preventing illness while on a
cruise. Similarly, Fisher et al. (2018) and Holland
(2020) found cruise passengers used handwashing
to prevent illness onboard and understood the impor-
tance of social distancing to avoid transmission.
While some cruise passengers may book a cruise
because of the perceived ease of access to medical
care, Klein et al. (2017) pointed out this was not
always the case, noting the lack of standardisation
in facilities onboard or medical sta, with widely
diering levels of medical qualications (also Dahl &
Stannard, 2015). The authors identied wide variation
between what cruise passengers expect and what
exists, and the diculty surrounding liability should
something go wrong. There is also increased
diculty in medical evacuations from cruise ships
when sailing in remote destinations (Lück et al.,
2010; Stewart et al., 2007), which may be of more
concern when cruise operations resume after
COVID-19. However, the lack of data available in
relation to the COVID-19 pandemic suggests more
research is needed to determine if, or how, health
concerns about cruise holidays have changed,
especially considering the many cruise ships that
had conrmed cases of the coronavirus onboard.
The impact of COVID-19 on the cruise sector
As the COVID-19 pandemic has had a signicant
impact on how people perceive health risks in cruis-
ing, it provides an opportunity to develop a deeper
understanding of how anxiety around health inu-
ences cruise choices and, signicantly, what steps
cruise passengers might take in the future. A gap
exists in the literature in identifying how tourists
manage the risks of a cruise holiday, particularly
health risks, despite several previous infectious out-
breaks on cruise ships& amp; amp; amp; nbsp;(see
Kak, 2007; Lanini et al., 2014; Mouchtouri & Rudge,
2015; Neri et al., 2008). Further, little is understood
about what specic risk reduction strategies potential
cruise passengers employ to manage and mitigate
such risks as COVID-19. Thus, research needs to look
more deeply into how health anxieties inuence risk
perceptions and explore how access to medical care
might inuence cruise decision-making, especially
considering COVID-19.
Quintal et al. (2021) are one of the rst studies to
investigate risk reducing behaviours for cruise tourists
in relation to COVID-19, nding health information
had a signicant positive impact on reducing travel
anxiety for some Australian cruisers. A framework
was proposed to guide risk communication to estab-
lish trust and handle risk, including focusing on com-
petence, consistency, consideration, and conviviality
(Quintal et al., 2021; Renn & Levine, 1991).
Further, few studies have examined risk strategies
beyond a narrow emphasis on cruisers in the United
States, perhaps because this is the largest cruise pas-
senger source market (CLIA, 2020c). Thus, our knowl-
edge is limited, and more research is needed, as there
may be dierences in risk perceptions and risk
reduction methods between regions. For example,
Mahadevans(2016) study found brand reputation
and brand loyalty were less important to Australian
cruisers, which diers from other studies which
found brand loyalty was inuential in cruise
decision-making (see Ahn et al., 2021; Li & Petrick,
2008). This may be signicant as brand loyalty is a
risk reliever. An understanding of regional dierences
is critically important in predicting how cruisers will
respond in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic
and how risk perceptions will inuence future cruise
travel decision-making and behaviour. As dierent
markets begin to restart operations, understanding
regional dierences will be even more important.
Prior research has found evidence of these dier-
ences, with Holland et al. (2021) reporting that Austra-
lians were more negative about cruising because of
COVID-19 in comparison to respondents living in the
UK. This may be explained by the more extensive
media negative coverage in Australia in relation to
the Ruby Princess and other cruise-related deaths
and passenger-related COVID-19 transmissions.
Similarly, industry research conducted in the UK
during the height of the pandemic found 83% of UK
travellers aged 5070 said given enough time and a
vaccine they would cruise again. However, a trend is
emerging where more cruisers are saying they
would not cruise again the longer the pandemic con-
tinued (Silver Travel Advisor, 2021). Further, 17% of
cruiser respondents indicated they would never
ocean cruise again, up from 14% at the start of the
research in May 2020 (Silver Travel Advisor, 2020).
Other research has also noted the pandemics nega-
tive impact on repeat cruisersbehavioural intentions
and willingness to cruise (Radic et al., 2021). The
increased perceived risk of cruising is particularly sig-
nicant, as many cruise tourists are risk averse (Tarlow,
2006) and ensuring a safe and healthy cruise is para-
mount for the cruise sector (Liu-Lastres et al., 2019).
While research suggests those with more cruise
experience may take more actions to prevent illness
(Baker & Stockton, 2013; Liu et al., 2016), there is
less known about other steps cruise tourists might
take to reduce other risks. This is important as the
cruise industry seeks to restart operations, highlight-
ing the need to understand how to encourage
people to return to cruising and what risk reduction
strategies might assist in this transition. These issues
were examined in the present study, which is dis-
cussed in subsequent sections.
The study used a mixed-method approach in the
methodology comprising a large-scale consumer
survey with both psychometric scales for quantitative
analysis, and open-ended items for qualitative analy-
sis. The following sub-sections outline the method-
ology followed.
Questionnaire design and data collection
The survey incorporated items from a number of
applicable scales, including those focused on per-
ceived overall value, word of mouth, risk avoidance,
change and willingness to purchase (see, for
example, Quintal et al., 2010; Sweeney et al., 2008;
Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). This paper is primarily con-
cerned with cruisersperceptions of cruise travel risk
and their responses to six items adapted and devel-
oped from the 15-item travel risk scale presented by
Floyd and Pennington-Gray (2004) and a number of
subsequent studies (e.g. Abraham et al., 2020; Choi
et al., 2019; Floyd et al., 2004; Schroeder et al.,
2013). The six items are:
.I feel nervous about travelling right now
.Travelling is risky right now
.I would feel very uncomfortable if I was travelling
right now
.Travelling now could cause me trouble
.It would be risky for me to travel now
.There is a potential loss for me if I should travel
To better understand the risk associated with
dierent types of travel, respondents answered
these items with respect to domestic travel, inter-
national travel, and ocean cruising, with a seven-
point Likert-type disagreeagree scale being used in
each case. Some background information (e.g. age,
gender, and cruising history) was also obtained for
classication purposes and open-ended questions
were included to provide additional insights into the
quantitative data.
Data were collected from 369 cruiser respon-
dents in Australia and the UK in June 2020 at the
height of the COVID-19 crisis. The survey was admi-
nistered by an international consumer panel
company and was not intended to be a representa-
tive sample of the population of either Australia or
the UK, but rather to obtain a mix of respondents
who had not cruised and those with cruising
experience who were generally representative of
the cruising population. Thus, a minimum number
of cruisers aged 40 or older was targeted given the
average age of Australian cruisers was 49 and 57 for
UK passengers (CLIA, 2019a; CLIA Australasia, 2018).
The sample included 283 Australian and 86 UK
respondents who had cruised previously, compared
to only 6% of Australians (CLIA Australasia, 2018)
and 3% of UK residents (CLIA UK & Ireland, 2019) who
have cruised when compared to the wider national
population. As can be seen in Table 1, the samples
were similar in terms of their socio-demographic
Data analysis
An initial analysis suggested some of the risk items
were very highly correlated across the three contexts,
which meant it was not possible to assume discrimi-
nant validity between them. Consequently, some
items were removed from some of the contexts,
which meant four international travel and ve cruising
items were retained, as can be seen in the Appendix.
When this was done, the three contexts had discrimi-
nant validity. Further, following Thomas et al.s(2001)
suggestion, it was clear removing these items had not
aected the nature of the scales, as the correlations
between the original and revised scales were 0.98
for the cruising scale and 0.81 for international
travel. The descriptive statistics obtained for the
three risk scales after these revisions can be seen in
Table 2. As can be seen in the Table, cruising and
international travel rated as high risk (5.87 and 5.79
respectively), while domestic travel was less risky.
Interestingly, the scales all had reasonable variability
(as can be seen in their standard deviations),
suggesting there may be some heterogeneity in
responses. The alpha coecients and construct
reliabilities were all high (well above 0.80), suggesting
reliabilities were acceptable, while the AVE scores
were all well above 0.50, suggesting convergent val-
idity could be assumed (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
Finally, discriminant validity was assessed by examin-
ing the AVE scores and their correlations. In this case,
all the AVE scores were higher than their relevant
squared correlation, suggesting discriminant validity
could be assumed (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Further,
HTMT ratios were also computed and there were all
less than 0.90, supporting the scalesdiscriminant val-
idity (Henseler et al., 2015).
As it seemed likely there was heterogeneity in the
data, a cluster analysis was undertaken to see whether
there were dierent subgroups. Cluster analysis aims
to identify homogeneous subgroups, allowing
researchers to identify any natural structure among
the observations based on a multivariate prole
(Hair et al., 2014, p. 415). Wards(1963) hierarchical
clustering method was used to do this, as it minimises
within-group variation and tends to produce clusters
of similar size (Sweeney et al., 2011; Viswanathan
Table 2. Risk scalesdescriptive statistics.
Perceived Risk
Construct Mean SD Alpha
Domestic Travel 4.12 1.52 0.94 0.94 0.73
5.79 1.29 0.88 0.88 0.64
Cruising 5.87 1.30 0.91 0.91 0.67
Table 1. Respondentsbackground characteristics.
Background Variable TOTAL Australian UK
N 369 283 86
Gender Male 49% Female 51% Male 48% Female 52% Male 47% Female 53%
Age (Median) 53 years (54) 55 years (54) 55 years (57)
Household Income 36% Under $52,000
25% $52,00090,999
20% $91,000155,999
8% Over $156,000
27% Under $52,000
28% $52,00090,999
24% $91,000155,999
10% Over $156,000
16% Under £24,999
47% £25,00051,999
16% £52,00090,999
10% Over £91,000
Education Level
(% with University qualication)
45% 46% 44%
Cruise History 32% = 1 cruise
22% = 2 cruises
27% = 34 cruises
11% = 59 cruises
6% = 10+ cruises
31% = 1 cruise
22% = 2 cruises
29% = 34 cruises
11% = 59 cruises
7% = 10+ cruises
31% = 1 cruise
22% = 2 cruises
29% = 34 cruises
11% = 59 cruises
7% = 10+ cruises
Work Status
% Full-time 31% 30% 36%
% Self-Employed/ Part-time 27% 27% 26%
% Retired 31% 32% 30%
Unemployed/stood down because of COVID-19 10% 11% 8%
Relationship Status
% with partner (%married) 70% (58%) 72% (59%) 66% (56%)
%no children in house (%childless) 67% (27%) 68% (27%) 64% (26%)
et al., 2007). A ve-cluster solution emerged as the
most appropriate when considering minimum
cluster sizes and a maximum and acceptable point
biserial correlation coecient (0.46 in this case) (Milli-
gan & Mahajan, 1980; Soutar & Sweeney, 2003). The
multivariate dierences between the groups were
examined by following Soutar and Sweeneys(2003)
suggestion of estimating a discriminant analysis in
which the ve groups were the dependent variable,
and the three risk contexts were the explanatory vari-
ables. The analysis suggested the cluster analysis had
found ve distinct subgroups, as the F-statistics based
on the Mahalanobis distances between the groups
were all signicant well beyond the 0.0001 level.
Further, the I-square statistic suggested by Peterson
and Mahajan (1976) indicated the discriminant analy-
sis explained 91% of the variation between the
groups. Clearly, the groups are distinct and worthy
of further attention and their mean scores can be
seen in Table 3.
Quantitative results
As can be seen in Table 3, there were real dierences
in group membersrisk perceptions, which led to the
names they were given, which are also shown in the
table. There were notable dierences between the
groups, and this provides insight about cruisersrisk
perceptions. There were also some dierences in
their backgrounds, as can be seen in Table 4 and is
discussed in more detail within each group. Groups
3 and 4 perceived the most risk in all travel, compared
to groups 1 and 2 which perceived risk in cruising and
international travel, but not domestic travel. Groups 1
and 2 also appear to feel risk was manageable, with
group 5 perceiving the least risk in any form of
travel. Each group is discussed in more detail in the
following section.
Group 3 perceived all travel as very risky, including
concerns about domestic travel. This group had the
highest proportion of females, and more group
members were retired. This group had a greater
change in their views about cruising, with 85%
feeling less positive now than before the pandemic
and 85% saying they were much less willing to
cruise now. There was also the highest negative
response compared to the other groups with 30%
responding they would never cruise again. Group 3
are most risk avoidant.
Groups 1 and 2 saw domestic travel as manage-
able, but international travel and cruise travel as
risky. These groupsmembers were more likely to be
in full-time employment. Group 2 had the second
highest percentage of responses saying they would
never cruise again (24%), with 39% saying they were
much less willing to cruise again. Further, 32% of
Group 2 respondents said their attitude to cruising
had changed and they felt much less positive about
cruising, compared to 4% for group 1. Interestingly,
58% of Group 1 members said they would cruise
again when it was safe, even though these respon-
dents were 50% less willing to cruise.
Group 4 members saw all travel as moderately
risky, with 45% saying they would cruise again once
it was safeand 25% reporting no change to how
they felt about cruising. However, 54% said they
were less positive about cruising because of the pan-
demic, and 59% were less willing to cruise. This group
had the highest proportion of members holding
bookings impacted by COVID-19.
Group 5 members had least concerns about travel
risk. This group had much higher percentages of
males and UK respondents than in the others and
was the most experienced group of cruisers, with
several respondents having cruised 10 times or
more. This groups members were less likely to have
changed how they felt about cruising (47%), with
50% saying the pandemic has not changed their will-
ingness to cruise.
Qualitative results
Responses to the open-ended question that asked
respondents to comment on how they might
Table 3. Mean scores (ve groups).
Group 1 2 3 4 5
Domestic Travel 2.82 3.14 5.82 4.78 2.46
International Travel 4.97 6.59 6.83 5.41 3.15
Cruising 5.00 6.64 6.88 5.56 3.12
Group Size 48 99 88 100 34
Group Name Moderate risk in
High risk in
High risk all
Moderate risk all
Low to moderate risk all
change the way they cruise in future were analysed
using the Leximancer text-analytic software. Leximan-
cer identies the underlying themes and related con-
cepts within a corpus of text using word occurrence
and co-occurrence counts to extract major thematic
and conceptual content to generate a concept map,
or tables, that indicate key concepts and conceptual
relationships (Angus et al., 2013). This software pro-
vides a robust, machine-supported way to analyse
text-based qualitative data (Biroscak et al., 2017;
Lemon & Hayes, 2020). It generates both tabular and
visual reports, the latter being concept maps (see
Figure 1), which display the concept seeds found in
the data, linkages between them, and how they are
clustered into themes within the corpus in coloured
bubblesthat are labelled automatically by the soft-
ware. Themes that contain the highest proportion of
responses (hits), are visualised with hottercolours
(e.g. red).
A total of 352 respondents provided comments
and these data were used in the Leximancer analysis.
These comments were placed into their risk groups
based on the cluster analysis discussed earlier.
Figure 1 shows the concept map obtained from this
analysis using the same ve distinct groups identied
in the cluster analysis, while Table 5 identies the
themes obtained from this analysis.
As can be seen in Figure 1, nine major themes
emerged from the Leximancer analysis. Of these, the
most important was CRUISE, which focused on
respondentsperceptions of whether they would be
happy to cruise again in the future due to the
impact of COVID-19. As the indicative text listed in
Table 5 suggests, this focused on respondents
feeling they would give more attention to selecting
cruise companies they feel were more trustworthy
and oered safe ships. This extends to selecting itiner-
aries that stopped at safe ports and that were either
cruising closer to their home ports, and/or had less
crowded ships with the right mix of passengers (e.g.
adults rather than families and children). It is worth
noting the theme SHIPS was connected to the
CRUISE theme. This theme focused on the desire for
ships that were perceived to be clean, with more
Table 4. Background dierences between the groups.
Characteristic Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 Group 5 TOTAL
Gender 52% M: 46% F 44% M: 56% F 41% M: 59% F 45% M: 55% F 71% M: 29% F 47% M: 53% F
Country 77% AU: 23% UK 88% AU: 12% UK 78% AU: 22% UK 74% AU: 26% UK 47% AU: 53% UK 77% AU: 23% UK
Average Age 54 years 57 years 58 years 52 years 55 years 55 years
Work status 42% Full-time
17% Retired
26% Full-time
40% Retired
17% Full-time
41% Retired
38% Full-time
22% Retired
27% Full-time
29% Retired
31% Full-time
31% Retired
How many
(Top 3
Were you
Yes: 29% No: 71% Yes: 16% No: 84% Yes: 14% No: 86% Yes: 21% No: 79% Yes: 18% No: 82% Yes: 19% No: 81%
How soon do
you expect
to cruise
again (by %
58% When it is
29% Do not know.
6% Never
6% As soon as
36% When it is
37% Do not know.
24% Never
2% As soon as
36% Do not know.
33% When it is
30% Never
1% As soon as
45% When it is
34% Do not know.
13% Never
8% As soon as
41% Do not know.
32% When it is
24% As soon as
3% Never
41% When it is
36% Do not know.
18% Never
6% As soon as
Change in
to cruise
50% Less Willing
(4.2% Much less
38% no change
62% Less Willing
(39% Much less
13% no change
85% Less Willing
(60% Much less
13% no change
59% Less Willing
(17% Much less
18% no change
18% Less Willing
(3% Much less
50% no change
65% Less Willing
(30% Much less
26% no change
Change in
56% Less positive
(4.2% Much less
35% no change
72% Less positive
(32% Much less
26% no change
85% Less positive
(56% Much less
13% no change
54% Less positive
(15% Much less
25% no change
29% Less positive
(3% Much less
47% no change
64% Less positive
(27% Much less
26% no change
and better medical staand facilities. There was also a
clear preference for smaller ships that were less likely
to pose a health risk.
The CABIN theme was the next most important
and reected respondents desires to secure cabins
with a balcony or more space. This appears to be
a response to a perceived need to have access to
fresh air, not just for the benets of this for
health, but in case they were caught by a COVID
outbreak that required them to be quarantined in
their cabin.
The next most important theme was CHANGE. This
reected respondentsapprehension about whether
to cruise, and a desire to ensure any future cruising
was safe. However, there were comments, as shown
in Table 5, which indicated a desire for a smaller bou-
tiquecruise experience that might be closer to their
home port. This was followed by the theme SURE,
which was connected to the CHANGE theme. The
focus of the theme was respondentsperceptions
about what actions they might be able to take to
make sure they were safe. This included choosing itin-
eraries that were closer to their home port, securing a
balcony cabin and cruising on ships that oered more
safety from disease.
The fth most important theme was CRUISING,
which included respondents wanting shorter cruises,
but also comments about their willingness to ocean
Figure 1. The Leximancer concept map.
cruise in future. This theme was closely associated
with the theme ROOM, which focused on a desire
for a balcony cabin, with access to fresh air and
sucient space. The other two themes were TRY,
which related to respondentsdesire to nd a safe
cruise experience, and COVID, which focused on
their concerns about the need to nd a vaccine or
cure for the COVID-19 virus or to travel only to
countries considered virus free (e.g. Australia and
New Zealand).
Table 5. The key themes and concepts.
CRUISE 109 Cruise, future, line I will only book a cruise in the future with a reputable cruise line that is transparent and
I would probably be looking to change my cruise line in the future. I would also like to choose
an itinerary close to my home.
A better-quality line that doesnt have families.
Im dissatised with all cruise line companies as there ruining the oceans and ports.
The only cruise I may consider in the future would be a European river cruise.
CABIN 75 Cabin, balcony, book,
Book dierent cabin type.
Book a dierent type of cabin.
Cabin with a balcony, shorter cruise, dierent destination.
Book a balcony cabin.
Will always book a balcony cabin. Never sail for more than 14 days.
CHANGE 65 Change, cruises, home If the COVID-19 was resolved (i.e. cure or safe vaccination) I wouldnt change the way I cruise in
the future. Unless the situation is resolved I wont be going on any cruises.
Would not change anything Silverseas oers small numbers and stawho provide excellent
service and appear happy to work on the ships. Would not do a cruise on the cheap cruises that
have thousands.
Closer to home.
Itinerary closer to home.
Closer to home sailing from an English port.
SURE 53 Sure, choose, itinerary I will choose itinerary closer to home and make sure its safe.
I would choose an itinerary closer to home.
Choose itinerary closer to home.
I would make sure I booked a balcony cabin, I would research cruise lines for peoples reviews, I
would nd an itinerary closer to home.
I would probably be looking to change my cruise line in the future. I would also like to choose
an itinerary close to my home.
CRUISING 19 Cruising Shorter cruising.
I wont be cruising until a vaccine is created and available.
Not cruising.
Doubt if this applies to me, not planning on cruising again.
Depends on where I decide to go if cruising.
SHIPS 8 Ships Clean ships, more health workers.
Go on smaller ships.
Wont go on large ships.
More secure healthy on-board experience, more doctors on ships, better health service.
Smaller cruise ships, like the Sea Cloud II.
ROOM 8 Room Would request a disabled room or balcony. I need fresh air due to my advanced lung disease.
Balcony room for fresh air. Carefully choose ports.
Wait and ensure I have a balcony room.
Would love to have balcony room.
I would make sure I have a large room and ensure that all passengers are checked before the
TRY 7 Try Will try to book as personalised as it can b.
We had a bad experience according to other cruisers so I MIGHT try again not sure where.
Would only try to go to new places that I have not yet visited.
I think I would try a dierent cruise line as I thought Carnival was aimed more at young
I would probably try and book a balcony if I cruised again in case of quarantine.
COVID 6 COVID Nothing will happen for me until COVID-19 is eradicated.
Yes, I think 1st thing is safety, no COVID-19 impact, complete security, clean and completely
I am afraid now if COVID makes me stuck in cruise itself.
Only visit places with good record on COVID e.g. NZ, Australia.
Will enjoy more than previous because after long time may take trip for this due to COVID-19.
The ve subgroups
The Leximancer software enables sub-populations to
be separately coded to identify any similarities or
dierences that exist between them. By coding the
sub-populations e.g. moderate risk cruising (Group
1), high risk cruising (Group 2), high risk all travel
(Group 3), moderate risk all travel (Group 4), and low
risk all travel (Group 5), it was possible to generate
their orientation within the concept map as illustrated
in Figure 1. As can be seen, there were dierences
between these groups with each being more closely
associated with a dierent theme or set of concepts
found within the corpus of text. These dierences
are discussed below.
Perhaps the most noticeable relationship was with
Group 3, who were closely associated with the theme
COVID, suggesting their concerns about the risks
from COVID-19 had increased their risk perceptions
for travel of any kind, not just cruising. Group 2 were
closely associated with the CABIN,ROOM, and TRY
themes, indicating theirdesire to mitigate risk by ensur-
ing that they can securea suitable cabin with a balcony
and sucient space in case they are forced into quaran-
tine while on the ship. By contrast, Group 1 were closely
associated with the theme CHANGE, which reects, in
many cases, a view that they would not seek to
change much, although they might select cruise itiner-
aries that were closer to their home ports or that are run
by cruise companies with smaller ships, they consider
to be safer. Group 4 was linked to the theme SURE,
which included concepts relating to the selection of
travel arrangements that might serve to mitigate the
risk of infection. A further Leximancer analysis of each
of the ve groups separately highlighted these dier-
ences and the results obtained are discussed in sub-
sequent sections.
Group 1: moderate risk perception for cruising
The most important issue for this group was their
ability to secure cruise itineraries they felt were safer
(e.g. closer to their home ports and booking a cabin
with a balcony). They also preferred smaller ships
they perceived would be less likely to spread the
COVID-19. Examples of comments from this group
.I would probably be looking to change my cruise
line in the future. I would also like to choose an itin-
erary close to my home.
.I would possibly choose a balcony cabin and
denitely choose a liner that only carries a small
number of passengers.
However, it is also worth noting that many within
this group expressed a view that they would not
change anything, reecting their moderate level of
risk perception.
Group 2: high risk perception for cruising
Many in this group reported they would never go on a
cruise ship again. For those that did feel they might
try cruising in the future, there was a strong prefer-
ence for smaller ships with fewer passengers and a
desire for cabins that provided access to fresh air
through windows or balconies. Despite this, many of
this groups members did not see a need for
changes to cruising.
.I wont be cruising again.
.The only cruise I may consider in the future would
be a European river cruise.
Group 3: high risk perception all travel
This group was very negative about any future cruise
travel. As with Group 2, members expressed a strong
desire for cabins with a balcony. In addition, they indi-
cated a preference for shorter journeys within areas
adjacent to their country of origin. There were also
calls for ships to be smaller, with safer itineraries, as
well as better medical and hygiene services on
board. Interestingly this group also highlighted a
desire to consider the overall impact of cruise activity:
.I would ensure that the cruise line has every safety
measure in place that they should have, and that
they are also addressing environmental impact
and taking steps to be greener.
.Yes, I think, 1st thing is safety, no COVID-19
impact, complete security, clean and completely
Group 4: moderate risk perception all travel
This group focused on a need to secure cabins with
balconies or some access to more space and fresh
air. The cabin was an important consideration in any
future cruise travel intentions. However, this group
had many members who did not feel there was a need
for change.
.Balcony room for fresh air.
.I would make sure I have a large room.
Group 5: low to moderate risk perception all
This group showed a strong interest in securing
cabins with balconies and windows with fresh air.
They also wanted larger, more comfortable cabins,
and had an interest in nding cruise lines with a
good track record of maintaining health and
hygiene. Their interest in securing larger rooms with
access to fresh air seems to be motivated as much
by an assumption that this would be a more enjoyable
way to spend time if forced into quarantine than
would be a smaller room on the inside of the ship.
However, some group members did not feel there
was a real need to change.
.I would probably try and book a balcony if I
cruised again in case of quarantine.
.More secure health on-board experience, more
doctors on ships, better health service.
The cluster and Leximancer data analyses revealed
dierences in risk perceptions across the cruiser
sample and found ve distinct groups with
dierent risk perceptions and dierent risk handling
approaches (i.e. risk mitigation, risk avoidance and
the use of risk relievers). Interestingly, prior cruise
experience did not inuence risk perceptions as
might have been expected when compared to
other research which had suggested prior experi-
ence reduced perceived risk (see Fuchs & Reichel,
2011). Risk mitigation was seen in avoiding air
travel, booking directly with cruise lines and at the
last minute, choosing river cruises as these ships
are smaller and buying better travel insurance. Risk
avoidance included avoiding all cruise travel, delay-
ing purchase and waiting until there was a vaccine
or until travel was deemed safe. This was noted
by groups 2 and 3, which had many members indi-
cating they would not cruise again. However,
members in group 2 might be willing to cruise
again if they felt it was safe, suggesting the
importance for cruise lines in promoting a safe
experience and the critical role of risk handling.
Risk relievers included choosing larger cabins with
a balcony to have access to fresh air. There was a
desire to cruise closer to home, as domestic cruising
was seen as safe. This relates to how Wolet al.
(2019) suggests risk perceptions are evaluated in
comparison to home, with home judged as less
risky than abroad. Other risk relievers included travel-
ling on smaller ships with less people, which con-
trasts with the current industry trend to build
increasingly larger ships (see Castillo-Manzano &
López-Valpuesta, 2018). For example, Dream World
Cruises was set to launch a cruise ship (Global
Dream) in 2021 which would have carried 9000 pas-
sengers (Dream Cruise Line, 2019). The results from
this study suggest cruise passengers may not be
interested in returning to the larger cruise ships.
Both Australian and UK respondents expressed a pre-
ference for smaller ships, as the large mega-ships
were viewed as more dangerous. The respondents
from the UK were more likely to engage in risk relie-
vers, whereas the Australians were more likely to
suggest they plan to avoid all risk by avoiding cruis-
ing at this time.
The ndings indicated group 5, which contained
more experienced cruisers, were less likely to have
experienced change in their willingness to cruise.
This contrasts with the other four groups, which
suggests more research is needed to better under-
stand the role of prior cruise experience on risk per-
ceptions, but also what impact other factors may
have. Group 5 members were more likely to be male
and from the UK, suggesting gender or country of
residence may also inuence risk perceptions. Group
5 also saw all travel as low risk and had done the
most number of cruises, some having completed 10
or more. Group 3, which was the least willing to
cruise again was more likely to be female and from
A surprising nding was that respondents said they
would research the cruise line more in future to deter-
mine health measures and medical facilities onboard.
This contrasts with previous studies which found
cruise passengers were not concerned about health
risk and trusted the cruise lines to take care of them
and take appropriate precautions (Holland, 2020).
Further, they expected cruise ship companies would
maintain higher standards of cleanliness and disease
control. Respondents also suggested they would
look for changes to ship design to ensure improved
ventilation and consider a brands reputation for
handling viruses to select cruise operators and itiner-
aries that were perceived as COVID-safe. Concern was
expressed about travelling with fellow passengers,
with a distinct preference for those from safe
countries who were less likely to bring the virus
onboard and/or who would behave correctly. These
cruisers only wanted to visit port destinations that
were perceived as safe.
The challenges presently facing the global tourism
industry and the cruise sector are unprecedented
and both will need to address touristsfears and
anxieties about travel. This study contributed to
this discussion by providing insights into how
cruise tourists are likely to manage risk and the
impact COVID-19 has had on risk perceptions. The
study addressed some identied research gaps by
exploring how Australian and UK cruiserspercep-
tions of the risk of cruising have changed because
of COVID-19. It considered dierences between the
two regions in addition to dierences between the
ve identied subgroupsperceived risk of domestic,
international and cruise travel. It seems peoples will-
ingness to cruise and attitudes toward cruising are
more negative because of the pandemic, although
this is not uniform, as some subgroups were more
impacted than others. For the cruise industry to
rebound after the pandemic, the sector will need
to consider how cruise passengers will manage
risks in response to COVID-19.
The results indicate cruise lines can develop
dierent strategies in relation to how dierent
groups seek to manage risk and whether they per-
ceive domestic or international travel as risky. This
study provides a contribution by revealing that
cruise experience did not uniformly inuence risk per-
ceptions, as all respondents were cruisers but reacted
dierently, some reporting they were much more
negative about cruising and much less willing to
cruise again, while others indicated no change in
the perceived risk of cruising. As cruise experience
may play a role in reducing risk perceptions, more
research is needed to better understand the dier-
ences between groups and how other factors such
as gender and country of residence may potentially
inuence perceived risk.
This study presents specic risk reduction
methods and strategies that cruisers have identied
they plan to employ in the future, and as such adds
to the literature on risk handling for cruise passen-
gers. This study builds on the emerging literature
on touristsperceptions of risk of ocean cruising,
adding to the empirical work of Holland (2020), Le
and Arcodia (2018) and Liu-Lastres et al. (2019).
This study also contributes to the developing litera-
ture exploring cruise tourism specically in relation
to Australia and the United Kingdom, two important
passenger source markets that have been over-
looked and underdeveloped in comparison to
studies exploring cruisers from other regions. To
restore and strengthen consumer condence, the
cruise industry should promote the use of risk relie-
vers in marketing (see also Hasan et al., 2017) and
frame communication to address consumer anxieties
(Chua et al., 2021; Quintal et al., 2021). Marketing
should focus on smaller ships, balcony cabins, dom-
estic cruising where no ying is needed, and
oering shorter itineraries. They may also focus on
exible change and refund policies to decrease
concerns about potential nancial loss (see also
Chua et al., 2020). The industry and cruise lines
are encouraged to develop more transparent and
detailed communication to demonstrate how they
are addressing anxieties about cruise travel and
minimising risk, to further increase consumer con-
dence. This accords with Quintal et al.s(2021)
observations about the importance of promoting
health protocols pre, during and post-cruise.
Above all, this study demonstrates the cruise
industry needs to take care to not assume cruisers
will automatically return, and to develop risk
reduction strategies that will assist in a rebuilding
the sector.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).
This work was supported by University of Western Australia.
Jennifer Holland
Tim Mazzarol
Georey N. Soutar
Suellen Tapsall
Wendy A. Elliott
Cruise Line International Association. (2016). 2015 year in review.
Business Research and Economic Advisors.
Cruise Lines International Association Australasia. (2018). 2018
Australia Ocean source market report.https://www.cruising.
Business Research & Economic Advisors. (2019). The global con-
tribution of the international cruise industry to the global
economy in 2018.
Cruise Lines International Association UK & Ireland. (2019).
Ocean and river cruise review.
Dream Cruise Line. (2019). Genting cruise lines announces the
ocial name of dream cruisesrst 208,000 gross ton global
class ship at IBTM China.
Cruise Lines International Association. (2019a). 2018 global pas-
senger report.
Cruise Lines International Association. (2019b). The contribution
of the international cruise industry to the global economy in
Business Research & Economic Advisors. (2020). The global econ-
omic contribution of cruise tourism 2019.https://cruising.
UK Chamber of Shipping. (2020). Industry comes together to
develop new COVID-19 Framework for cruise operators.
Cruise Lines International Association. (2020a). FAQs: The cruise
community and COVID-19.
Cruise Lines International Association. (2020b). State of the cruise
industry outlook 2020.
Cruise Lines International Association. (2020c). 2019 global pas-
senger report.
Silver Travel Advisor. (2020). Coronavirus travel and holiday
survey: August 2020. Silver Travel Market Research.
Silver Travel Advisor. (2021). The silver travel industry report.
Lymington, UK Silver Travel Market Research. https://en.
BBC. (2021). Why the cruise industry is still navigating choppy
Cruise Lines International Association. (2021). State of the cruise
industry outlook 2021.
Seatrade Cruise News. (2021a). Australia extends international
cruise ship ban until June 17.https://www.seatrade-cruise.
Seatrade Cruise News. (2021b). MSC Virtuosa maiden voyage
marks UK cruise industry restart.https://www.seatrade-
Abraham, V., Mizrahi, R., & Orly, O. (2020). Exploring the antece-
dents and consequences of political animosity: The case of
millennial female tourists traveling to India. Current Issues in
Tourism, 24(2), 279296.
Ahn, J., Shamim, A., & Park, J. (2021). Impacts of cruise industry
corporate social responsibility reputation on customers
loyalty: Mediating role of trust and identication.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,92, 102706.
Amatulli, C., Guido, G., & Nataraajan, R. (2015). Luxury purchas-
ing among older consumers: Exploring inferences about cog-
nitive age, status, and style motivations. Journal of Business
Research,68(9), 19451952.
Angus, D., Rintel, S., & Wiles, J. (2013). Making sense of big text: A
visual-rst approach for analysing text data using Leximancer
and discursis. International Journal of Social Research
Methodology,16(3), 261267.
Baker, D. M., & Stockton, S. (2013). Smooth sailing! Cruise passen-
gersdemographics and health perceptions while cruising
the Eastern Caribbean. International Journal of Business and
Social Science,4(7), 817.
Bauer, R. (1960). Consumer behaviour as risk taking. In R. S.
Hancock (Ed.), Dynamic marketing for a changing world (pp.
389398). American Marketing Association.
Biroscak, B. J., Scott, J. E., Lindenberger, J. H., & Bryant, C. A.
(2017). Leximancer software as a research tool for social mar-
keters: Application to a Content analysis. Social Marketing
Quarterly,23(3), 223231.
Bowen, C., Fidgeon, P., & Page, S. J. (2014). Maritime tourism and
terrorism: Customer perceptions of the potential terrorist
threat to cruise shipping. Current Issues in Tourism,17(7),
Breakwell, G. (2014). The psychology of risk. Cambridge University
Castillo-Manzano, J. I., & López-Valpuesta, L. (2018). What does
cruise passengerssatisfaction depend on? Does size really
matter? International Journal of Hospitality Management,75,
Chen, S., Law, R., & Zhang, M. (2021). Review of research on
tourism-related diseases. Asia Pacic Journal of Tourism
Research,26(1), 4458.
Chien, P. M., Sharifpour, M., Ritchie, B. W., & Watson, B. (2017).
Travelershealth risk perceptions and protective
behavior: A psychological approach. Journal of Travel
Research,56(6), 744759.
Choi, K. H., Kim, M., & Leopkey, B. (2019). Prospective touristsrisk
perceptions and intentions to travel to a mega-sporting
event host country with apparent risk. Journal of Sport &
Tourism,23(2-3), 97114.
Chua, B. L., Al-Ansi, A., Lee, M. J., & Han, H. (2020). Touristsout-
bound travel behavior in the aftermath of the COVID-19: Role
of corporate social responsibility, response eort, and health
prevention. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,29(6), 879906.
Chua, B. L., Al-Ansi, A., Lee, M. J., & Han, H. (2021). Impact of
health risk perception on avoidance of international travel
in the wake of a pandemic. Current Issues in Tourism,24(7),
Cohen, E. (1972). Toward a sociology of international tourism.
Social Research,39(1), 164182.
Dahl, E., & Stannard, S. (2015). Ships doctor qualications: A
response to the German recommendations. International
Maritime Health,66(1), 13.
Davies, A., Hurst, D., & Zhou, N. (2020, April 2). Medical team
boards Ruby Princess oSydney coast to assess health of
1,100 crew. The Guardian.
De La Vina, L., & Ford, J. (2001). Logistic regression analysis of
cruise vacation market potential: Demographic and trip attri-
bute perception factors. Journal of Travel Marketing,39(4),
Dolven, T., Blaskey, S., Nehamas, N., & Harris, A. (2020, April 24).
Cruise ships sailed on despite the coronavirus. Thousands
paid the price. Miami Herald.https://www.miamiherald.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). How can we know the risks we
face? Why risk selection is a social process. Risk Analysis,2(2),
Fang, Y., Qureshi, I., Sun, H., McCole, P., Ramsey, E., & Lim, K. H.
(2014). Trust, satisfaction, and Online repurchase intention:
The moderating role of perceived eectiveness of E-com-
merce institutional mechanisms. Mis Quarterly,38(2), 407
Fisher, J. J., Almanza, B. A., Behnke, C., Nelson, D. C., & Neal, J.
(2018). Norovirus on cruise ships: Motivation for handwash-
ing? International Journal of Hospitality Management,75,
Floyd, M. F., Gibson, H., Pennington-Gray, L., & Thapa, B. (2004).
The eect of risk perceptions on intentions to travel in the
aftermath of September 11, 2001. Journal of Travel &
Tourism Marketing,15(2-3), 1938.
Floyd, M. F., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2004). Proling risk percep-
tions of tourists. Annals of Tourism Research,31(4), 1051
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation
models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research,18(1), 3950.
Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2004). Cultural dierences in tourist des-
tination risk perception: An exploratory study. Tourism
(Zagreb),52(1), 2137.
Fuchs, G., & Reichel, A. (2011). An exploratory inquiry into desti-
nation risk perceptions and risk reduction strategies of rst
time vs. repeat visitors to a highly volatile destination.
Tourism Management,32(2), 266276.
Guido, G., Amatulli, C., & Peluso, A. M. (2014). Context eects on
older consumerscognitive age: The role of hedonic versus
utilitarian goals. Psychology & Marketing,31(2), 103114.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., & Kuppelwieser, V. G.
(2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling
(PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European
Business Review.
Hasan, M. K., Ismail, A. R., Islam, M. F., & Tiu Wright, L. (2017).
Tourist risk perceptions and revisit intention: A critical review
of literature. Cogent Business & Management,4(1). Article
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion
for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based struc-
tural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science,43(1), 115135.
Henthorne, T. L., George, B. P., & Smith, W. C. (2013). Risk percep-
tion and buying behavior: An examination of some relation-
ships in the context of cruise tourism in Jamaica. International
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Administration,14(1), 6686.
Holland, J. (2020). Risk perceptions of health and safety in cruis-
ing. AIMS Geosciences,6(4), 422436.
Holland, J., Mazzarol, T., Soutar, G. N., Tapsall, S., & Elliott, W. A.
(2021). Cruising through a pandemic: The impact of COVID-
19 on intentions to cruise. Transportation Research
Interdisciplinary Perspectives,9,115.
Hung, K., & Petrick, J. F. (2011). Why do you cruise? Exploring the
motivations for taking cruise holidays, and the construction
of a cruising motivation scale. Tourism Management,32(2),
Ito, H., Hanaoka, S., & Kawasaki, T. (2020). The cruise industry and
the COVID-19 outbreak. Transportation Research
Interdisciplinary Perspectives,5, 100136.
Jordan, F., & Gibson, H. (2005). Were not stupid But well not
stay home either: Experiences of solo women travelers.
Tourism Review International,9(2), 195211.
Kak, V. (2007). Infections in conned spaces: cruise ships, military
barracks, and college dormitories. Infectious Disease Clinics of
North America,21(3), 773784.
Karl, M., Muskat, B., & Ritchie, B. W. (2020). Which travel risks are
more salient for destination choice? An examination of the
tourists decision-making process. Journal of Destination
Marketing & Management,18, 100487.
Kim, H., Schroeder, A., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2016). Does culture
inuence risk perceptions? Tourism Review International,20
(1), 1128.
Klein, R. A., Lück, M., & Poulston, J. (2017). Passengers and risk:
Health, wellbeing, and liability. In R. Dowling & C. Weeden
(Eds.), Cruise ship tourism (2nd ed., pp. 106123). CABI.
Korstanje, M. E. (2011). Why risk why now? Conceptual problems
around the risk perception in tourism industry. Revisita
Brasileira de Pesquisa em Turismo,5(1), 422.
Kozak, M., Crotts, J. C., & Law, R. (2007). The impact of the per-
ception of risk on international travellers. International
Journal of Tourism Research,9(4), 233242.
Lanini, S., Capobianchi, M. R., Puro, V., Filia, A., Del Manso, M.,
Kärki, T., Nicoletti, L., Magurano, F., Derrough, T., Severi, E.,
Bongli, S., Lauria, F. N., Ippoloti, G., Vellucci, L., Pompa, M.
G., & the Central task force for the measles outbreak
Collective. (2014). Measles outbreak on a cruise ship in the
western Mediterranean, February 2014, preliminary report.
Eurosurveillance,19(10), 26.
Le, T., & Arcodia, C. (2018). Risk perceptions on cruise ships
among young people: Concepts, approaches and directions.
International Journal of Hospitality Management,69, 102112.
Lee, K. F., Haque, A., Maulan, S., Abdullah, K., & Tarofder, K.
(2019). Risk reduction in Online ight reservation: The role
of information search. Journal of Reviews on Global
Economics,8, 886899.
Leer, C., & Hogan, M. (2020). Age-dependence of mortality
from novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in highly
exposed populations: New York transit workers and residents
and Diamond Princess passengers (Publication no. 10.1101/
2020.05.14.20094847). Retrieved October 12, 2020, from
Lemon, L. L.,& Hayes, J. (2020). Enhancingtrustworthiness of quali-
tative ndings: Using Leximancer for qualitative data analysis
triangulation. The Qualitative Report,25(3), 604614. https://
Lepp, A., & Gibson, H. (2003). Tourist roles, perceived risk, and
international tourism. Annals of Tourism Research,30(3),
Levin, T. (2020). Carnival plans to sell o12% of its eet as the
pandemic keeps the US cruise industry at a standstill.
Li, X., & Petrick, J. F. (2008). Reexamining the dimensionality of
brand loyalty: A case of the cruise industry. Journal of
Travel & Tourism Marketing,25(1), 6885.
Li, Z., Sha, Y., Song, X., Yang, K., Zhao, K., Jiang, Z., & Zhang, Q.
(2020). Impact of risk perception on customer purchase
behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business & Industrial
Marketing, 35(1), 76-96.
Lin, P. J., Jones, E., & Westwood, S. (2009). Perceived risk and risk-
relievers in online travel purchase intentions. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management,18(8), 782810.
Liu-Lastres, B., Schroeder, A., & Pennington-Gray, L. (2019).
Cruise line customersresponses to risk and crisis
communication messages: An Application of the risk
perception attitude framework. Journal of Travel
Research,58(5), 849865.
Liu, B., Pennington-Gray, L., & Krieger, J. (2016). Tourism crisis
management: Can the extended parallel process model be
used to understand crisis responses in the cruise industry?
Tourism Management,55, 310321.
Lo, A. S., Cheung, C., & Law, R. (2011). Hong Kong residents
adoption of risk reduction strategies in leisure travel.
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing,28(3), 240260.
Lück, M., Maher, P. T., & Stewart, E. J. (Eds.). (2010). Cruise tourism
in polar regions: Promoting environmental and social sustain-
ability? Earthscan.
Mahadevan, R. (2016). Examining the intention to cruise again
sooner rather than later. Tourism Economics,22(6), 1423
Mansfeld, Y., Jonas, A., & Cahaner, L. (2016). Between tourists
faith and perceptions of travel risk: An exploratory study of
the Israeli Haredi community. Journal of Travel Research,55
(3), 395413.
Matiza, T. (2020). Post-COVID-19 crisis travel behaviour: Towards
mitigating the eects of perceived risk. Journal of Tourism
Futures Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://
Milligan, G. W., & Mahajan, V. (1980). A note on procedures for
testing the quality of a clustering of a set of objects.
Decision Sciences,11(4), 669677.
Mitchell, V.-W. (1999). Consumer perceived risk:
Conceptualisations and models. European Journal of
Marketing,33(1/2), 163195.
Mizrachi, I., & Fuchs, G. (2016). Should we cancel? An examin-
ation of risk handling in travel social media before visiting
ebola-free destinations. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
Mizumoto, K., & Chowell, G. (2020). Transmission potential of the
novel coronavirus (COVID-19) onboard the diamond Princess
cruises ship, 2020. Infectious Disease Modelling,5, 264270.
Morakabati, Y., Fletcher, J., & Prideaux, B. (2012). Tourism devel-
opment in a dicult environment: A study of consumer atti-
tudes, travel risk perceptions and the termination of demand.
Tourism Economics,18(5), 953969.
Moriarty, L. F., Plucinski, M. M., Marston, B. J., Kurbatova, E. V.,
Knust, B., Murray, E. L., Pesik, N., Rose, D., Fitter, D.,
Kobayashi, M., Toda, M., Canty, P. T., Scheuer, T., Halsey, E.
S., Cohen, N. J., Stockman, L., Wadford, D. A., Medley, A. M.,
Green, G., Richards, J. (2020). Public health responses to
COVID-19 outbreaks on cruise ships worldwide,
FebruaryMarch 2020. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report,69(12), 347352.
Mouchtouri, V. A., & Rudge, J. W. (2015). Legionnairesdisease in
hotels and passenger ships: A systematic review of
evidence, sources, and contributing factors. Journal of
Travel Medicine,22(5), 325337.
Neri, A. J., Cramer, E. H., Vaughan, G. H., Vinjé, J., & Mainzer, H. M.
(2008). Passenger behaviors during norovirus outbreaks on
cruise ships. Journal of Travel Medicine,15(3), 172176.
Neuburger, L., & Egger, R. (2021). Travel risk perception and
travel behaviour during the COVID-19 pandemic 2020: A
case study of the DACH region. Current Issues in Tourism,24
(7), 10031016.
Nugraha, A., Hamin, H., & Elliott, G. (2016). Tourism destination
decisions: The impact of risk aversion and prior experience.
Asia Pacic Journal of Tourism Research,21(12), 12741284.
Nugraha, A. K. N. A., Hamin, H., & Elliott, G. (2020). The role and
impact of risk reduction in leisure tourism. Annals of Leisure
Perpiña, L., Prats, L., & Camprubí, R. (2021). Image and risk per-
ceptions: An integrated approach. Current Issues in Tourism,
24(3), 367384.
Peterson, R. A., & Mahajan, V. (1976). Practical signicance and
partitioning variance in discriminant analysis. Decision
Sciences,7(4), 649658.
Petrick, J. F., Li, X., & Park, S. Y. (2007). Cruise passengers
decision-making processes. Journal of Travel & Tourism
Marketing,23(1), 114.
Promsivapallop, P., & Kannaovakun, P. (2018). Travel risk dimen-
sions, personal-related factors, and intention to visit a desti-
nation: A study of young educated German adults. Asia
Pacic Journal of Tourism Research,23(7), 639655. https://
Quintal, V., Sung, B., & Lee, S. (2021). Is the coast clear? Trust, risk-
reducing behaviours, and anxiety toward cruise travel in the
wake of COVID-19. Current Issues in Tourism,113. https://doi.
Quintal, V. A., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2010). Risk, uncertainty,
and the theory of planned behavior: A tourism example.
Tourism Management,31(6), 797805.
Radic, A., Lück, M., Al-Ansi, A., Chua, B.-L., Seeler, S., Raposo, A.,
Kim, J. J., & Han, H. (2021). To dine, or not to dine on a
cruise ship in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic: The tripar-
tite approach towards an understanding of behavioral inten-
tions among female passengers. Sustainability,13(5), 2516.
Reichel, A., Fuchs, G., & Uriely, N. (2007). Perceived risk and the
non-institutionalized tourist role: The case of Israeli student
ex-backpackers. Journal of Travel Research,46(2), 217226.
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel anxiety and intentions
to travel internationally: Implications of travel risk perception.
Journal of Travel Research,43(3), 212225.
Renn, O., & Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk com-
munication. In R. E. Kasperson & P. J. M. Stallen (Eds.),
Communicating risks to the public (4th ed., pp. 175218).
Rocklöv, J., Sjodin, H., & Wilder-Smith, A. (2020). COVID-19 out-
break on the diamond princess cruise ship: Estimating the
epidemic potential and eectiveness of public health
countermeasures. Journal of Travel Medicine,27,3.https://
Roehl, W. S., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (1992). Risk perceptions and
pleasure travel: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Travel
Research,30(4), 1726.
Ropeik, D. (2004). The consequences of fear. EMBO Reports,5(1),
Roselius, T. (1971). Consumer rankings of risk reduction
methods. Journal of Marketing,35(1), 5661.
Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L., Kaplanidou, K., & Zhan, F.
(2013). Destination risk perceptions among U.S. Residents
for London as the host city of the 2012 Summer Olympic
Games. Tourism Management,38, 107119.
Sharifpour, M., Walters, G., Ritchie, B. W., & Winter, C. (2014).
Investigating the role of prior knowledge in tourist decision
making: A structural equation model of risk perceptions
and information search. Journal of Travel Research,53(3),
Sönmez, S. F., & Graefe, A. R. (1998). Determining future travel
behavior from past travel experience and perceptions of
risk and safety. Journal of Travel Research,37(2), 171177.
Soutar, G. N., & Sweeney, J. C. (2003). Are there cognitive disso-
nance segments? Australian Journal of Management,28(3),
Stewart, E. J., Howell, S. E., Draper, D., Yackel, J., & Tivy, A.
(2007). Sea ice in Canadas Arctic: Implications for cruise
tourism. Arctic,60(4), 370380.
Sun, X., Kwortnik, R., & Gauri, D. K. (2018). Exploring behavioral
dierences between new and repeat cruisers to a cruise
brand. International Journal of Hospitality Management,71,
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. (2001). Consumer perceived value:
The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of
Retailing,77(2), 203220.
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G., & Mazzarol, T. (2008). Factors inuen-
cing word of mouth eectiveness: Receiver perspectives.
European Journal of Marketing,42(3-4), 344364. https://doi.
Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., & McColl-Kennedy, J. R. (2011). The
marketing practices-performance relationship in professional
service rms. Journal of Service Management,22(3), 292316.
Tan, W. K., & Wu, C. E. (2016). An investigation of the relation-
ships among destination familiarity, destination image and
future visit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing &
Management,5(3), 214226.
Tarlow, P. (2006). Terrorism and tourism. In J. Wilkes, D.
Pendergast, & P. Leggat (Eds.), Tourism in turbulent times:
Towards safe experiences for visitors (advances in tourism
research) (pp. 7992). Elsevier.
Taylor, J. W. (1974). The role of risk in consumer behavior: A com-
prehensive and operational theory of risk taking in consumer
behavior. Journal of Marketing,38(2), 5460.
Thomas, R. W., Soutar, G. N., & Ryan, M. M. (2001). The selling
orientation-customer orientation (SOCO) scale: A proposed
short form. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management,
21(1), 6369.
Viswanathan, S., Kuruzovich, J., Gosain, S., & Agarwal, R. (2007).
Online infomediaries and price discrimination:
Evidence from the automotive retailing sector. Journal of
Marketing,71(3), 89107.
Wai, K., Dastane, O., Johari, Z., & Ismail, N. B. (2019). Perceived risk
factors aecting consumersonline shopping behaviour. The
Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business,6(4), 246
Walker, B. (2020). Special Commission of inquiry into the Ruby
Wang, J., Liu-Lastres, B., Ritchie, B. W., & Pan, D. Z. (2019). Risk
reduction and adventure tourism safety: An extension of
the risk perception attitude framework (RPAF). Tourism
Management,74, 247257.
Ward, J. H. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objec-
tive function. Journal of the American Statistical Association,
58(301), 236244.
Williams, A. M., & Baláž,V.(2013). Tourism, risk tolerance and
competences: Travel organization and tourism hazards.
Tourism Management,35, 209221.
Wol, K., Larsen, S., & Øgaard, T. (2019). How to dene and
measure risk perceptions. Annals of Tourism Research,79.
Article 102759.
Yang, C. L., & Nair, V. (2014). Risk perception study in tourism: Are
we really measuring perceived risk?. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences,144(1), 322327.
Yang, E. C. L., Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Arcodia, C. (2017). A systema-
tic literature review of risk and gender research in tourism.
Tourism Management,58,89100.
Yeung, R. M. W., & Yee, W. M. S. (2020). Risk measurement frame-
work An extension and validation of food safety risk in
international travel destinations. British Food Journal,115(8),
Yuen, K. F., Cao, Y., Bai, X., & Wang, X. (2021). The psychology of
cruise service usage post COVID-19: Health management and
policy implications. Marine Policy,130. Article 104586. https://
Appendix. The risk items used in the
International Travel Risk
I feel nervous about international travel right now
I would feel very uncomfortable if I were travelling internationally
right now
International travel now could cause me trouble
It would be risky for me to travel internationally now
There is a potential loss for me if I should travel internationally now
Domestic Travel Risk
I feel nervous about travel in my own country right now
Travel in my own country is risky right now
I would feel very uncomfortable if I were travelling in my own
country right now
Travelling in my own country now could cause me trouble
It would be risky for me to travel in my own country right now
There is a potential loss for me if I should travel in my own country
Cruising Travel Risk
Going on a cruise is risky right now
I would feel very uncomfortable going on a cruise right now
Going on a cruise now could cause me trouble
There is a potential loss for me if I should go on a cruise now
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Given that cruise line companies are rushing to restart their operations with modified dining services, the aim of this research is to establish a conceptual framework that precisely outlines female passengers’ behavioral intentions towards dining on cruise ships in the time of the COVID-19 crisis. It does so by extending the Theory of Reason Action (TRA) by including the social servicescape of the cruise ship dining experiencescape (S-O-R- paradigm) and perceived health risk from the COVID-19 (the Prospect Theory). The developed theoretical framework based on this tripartite approach has predictive power for intentions. Its effectiveness and comprehensiveness are also demonstrated. Despite the positive effect of the social servicescape on attitude and emotions and the positive attitude of female cruise travelers, the negative effect of perceived health risk from COVID-19 appears to be the dominant factor that ultimately discourages behavioral intentions of female cruise passengers towards dining on a cruise ship in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. The present research provides a crucial guiding framework that helps cruise academics and operators to maximize existing and potential passengers’ favorable decisions and behaviors for cruise ship dining.
Full-text available
The global coronavirus pandemic has devastated the cruise sector with widespread disruption and cancellations affecting millions of cruise passengers. The cruise industry was negatively affected due to the enclavic and confined environment onboard, the high infection rates among both crew and passengers, and widespread negative media coverage. This study explores the impact of COVID‐19 on willingness to cruise and attitudes towards cruising for both cruisers and non‐cruisers living in Australia and the United Kingdom. Data analysis of respondents’ comments was undertaken using both Leximancer text analytic software and manual content analysis. Findings indicate country of residence has a significant influence on risk perceptions for a cruise holiday and affects future intentions to cruise. Specific impacts for the cruise industry are discussed and recommendations proposed for policy and practice.
The cruise industry has suffered a huge loss due to the suspension of cruise operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. As the industry is preparing for recovery, there is an urgent need for research on cruise consumers’ psychology, in particular, the factors influencing their intention to use cruise services after the pandemic. This study employs theories, namely, the health belief model, trust theory and attitude theory, to investigate consumers’ use intention for cruise services after the pandemic. An online survey was administered to consumers in China’s tourism industry, where 376 responses were received. Subsequently, this study employs structural equation modelling to test its theoretical model consisting of hypotheses. The results show that consumers’ trust is directly influenced by health belief constructs including perceived safety threat, outcome expectation, self-efficacy and cues to action. Next, trust exerts a direct impact on consumers’ attitude and intention to use cruise services. Moreover, this study finds full and partial mediation effects. The findings provide a series of recommendations for cruise operators and policymakers in terms of marketing strategies, service design, public communication and health measures.
The study develops a segmentation typology based on consumer trust toward a particular agency and explores the impacts risk-reducing behaviours and anxiety have on cruise travel in the wake of COVID-19. It examined 504 Australian respondents in an online survey to derive three consumer segments, namely, Trust Government, Trust Government, and Cruise Company and Trust None. All three segments demonstrated that reduced anxiety significantly heightened desire and subsequently, intention to travel. The conceptual contributions of integrating trust, handled risk and anxiety in the crisis travel literature were highlighted. Also, the pragmatic implications for addressing trust to reduce risk and anxiety as well as to increase desire and intention to travel were examined with a proposed 4Cs framework.
Despite the high relevance of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in service businesses, investigations of its influence on the cruise sector are scarce. Relying on institutional theory, this study proposes a model with cruise customers’ trust and identification as the key factors between CSR reputation and customers’ loyalty. Using data from 292 cruise customers, results support the impact of customers’ perceived CSR reputation of cruise companies on two relational constructs and loyal behavior. Only customers’ identification mediates the relationships between reputation and brand loyalty. Thus, findings suggest that cruise customers likely form high-level loyal behavior when they perceive companies’ CSR activities and their similarities with such companies. From these significant findings, the authors draw several theoretical and practical implications, including the importance of enhancing the company’s focus on its CSR reputations. This study also provides directions to promote identity strengths for enhancing the impact of CSR reputation on company performance.
This article focuses on a novel mechanism for market segmentation and price discrimination based on consumers' use of online infomediaries. Using the automotive retailing context as the setting for the study, the authors address the following question: Can online infomediaries serve as a viable mechanism for market segmentation and price discrimination? They draw on a unique and extensive data set of consumers who report on the information they found when using online buying services (OBS) as part of their new vehicle purchase process. The analysis of the data set shows that consumers who obtain price information pay lower prices (for the same product), whereas consumers who obtain product information pay higher prices. Although this points to the existence of distinct consumer segments, this knowledge is of limited value without a viable mechanism that enables firms to identify and target these customer segments specifically. On the basis of consumer usage patterns of OBS, the authors uncover distinct OBS clusters and empirically demonstrate that the use of these different clusters is associated with predicted differences in consumer outcomes. They also show that the differential use of OBS clusters is systematically related to underlying consumer characteristics. They discuss the relevance of the findings for automobile dealers and manufacturers and for other industries in which online infomediaries have established a significant presence.
Little is known regarding how the tourists will perceive the post-pandemic travel particularly when planning to travel to the most affected global destinations. This study was designed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its adverse impact on the travel and tourism industry. It primarily investigated the key factors of the U.S. tourists’ destination attachment and the intentions to return to European and Asian destinations after the pandemic. A total of 367 participants were involved in the web-based survey. The results of the structural equation modeling demonstrated that in the event of a pandemic (1) the corporate social responsibility and the perceived response efforts were critical to generate the destination attachment and the approach behavioral intentions, (2) monetary promotions were not sufficient to generate the destination attachment and approach the behavioral intentions to the international destinations, and (3) the health preventive behavior and the destination attachment were important direct predictors of the approach behavioral intentions. These key findings could assist the travel and tourism companies to more effectively overcome the adverse impact of the pandemic on their businesses.
This study analyzes the contents of 115 articles related to the risk of tourism diseases to investigate research development trends from the period after the outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome to early 2020. The main findings show that researchers lack attention to the risk posed by tourism-related diseases, and research on these diseases is often synchronized with the occurrence of major international diseases and the development trends in tourism. Additionally, diseases are related to tourism, and they can interact with each other; research on disease risk management lacks a theoretical basis and the research themes are uneven.
As tourists are increasingly putting off their air travel due to the COVID-19 pandemic that has tremendously affected the travel and tourism industry, this study examined the role of negative affect, perceived health risk, perceived uncertainty, and mental wellbeing in forming travel attitudes and temporal avoidance behaviour to global destinations seriously-hit by the COVID-19 pandemic from a U.S. tourist perspective. The cross-sectional online survey showed that negative affect as a result of COVID-19 significantly influenced perceived health risk, which in turn induced mental wellbeing and perceived uncertainty. While mental wellbeing significantly predicted attitudes towards international travel and temporal avoidance behaviour, perceived uncertainty significantly predicted short-term avoidance behaviour. The insight obtained from this study provides a mechanism behind tourist avoidance behaviour in times of global health crises and implications for tourism reliant destinations to develop recovery strategies in coping with the impact of the pandemic.
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the on-going COVID-19 pandemic and its potential influence on tourist behaviour in the short- to medium-term. While the influence of the pandemic on tourist’s perceived risk and its impact on their future travel behaviour is understandably yet to be established, the present paper discusses the potential nexus. Additionally, this paper provides tourism practitioners with some recommendations for mitigating the effect of potential heightened perceived risk on travel and tourism decision-making post the COVID-19 crisis. Design/methodology/approach – The present paper synthesises contemporary academic literature on perceived risk and post-crisis tourism with emerging information associated with the unfolding COVID-19 crisis. Findings – This paper draws empirical evidence from studies related to previous health crises and their impact on tourism, as well as tourist behaviour. By discussing previous studies within the context of the on-going COVID-19, it is possible to anticipate the influence that perceived risk associated with the pandemic may have on the post-crisis behaviour of tourists. Also, short-term measures to mitigate the effects of risk on tourism are posited to guide practitioners in the future recovery of the sector. Research limitations/implications – The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented and on-going crisis for the global tourism industry. Hence, the present paper serves as a primer to a broader discussion within the tourism discourse and provides theoretical direction for future tourism research. Practical implications – Key to the recovery of the global tourism industry will be encouraging both domestic and international tourism activity. However, while the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on tourist behaviour is yet to be substantiated, previous research predicts a situation of heightened perceived risk and the potential cognitive dissonance that may negatively influence tourist decision-making. To mitigate this potential effect, governance, augmented immigration policy, destination media profiling, recovery marketing and domestic tourism will be critical interventions. Originality/value – This paper is one of the first to discuss the potential influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the post-crisis decision-making process of tourists and their conative behaviour. As a primer to further empirical research, this paper sets a pertinent research agenda for academic inquiry within an evolving and increasingly uncertain global tourism market.