Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

As destinations recover quickly from the COVID-19 pandemic, the tension caused by tourist misbehavior is coming back to poison the sustainability of tourism development. Guided by the social identity theory, this paper examines how people respond to compatriot tourist misbehavior. It contributes to the literature by studying the psychological mechanism underlying individuals’ calibration of misbehaviors committed by compatriot tourists and predicting downstream intergroup and intragroup consequences of tourist misbehavior. The results of two experiments showed that people displayed ingroup favoritism and intragroup differentiation simultaneously in their responses to compatriot tourists’ misbehavior. Ingroup identification motivated people to exculpate the misbehaving compatriots and carry out prosocial behavior direct at the destination involved, suggesting a double-edged sword. Emotions played mediating roles underlying people’s attitudes and behavioral intentions toward compatriot tourists’ misbehavior. The results also implied the moderating role of misbehavior type. Practically, this paper informs destinations on communication strategies for tourist misbehavior.

Keywords

Social identity ingroup deviance misbehavior guilt shame

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has made overtourism seem passé, as the tensions caused by tourism-induced disruptions have been overshadowed by dwindling tourist numbers and a reduction of tourism globally. However, according to McKinsey & Company, international travel will bounce back fast, and tourists will return with a vengeance (Krishnan et al., 2021). As destinations emerge from pandemic-related restrictions and prepare for tourism recovery, problems associated with excessive numbers of tourists, such as tourist misbehavior, are again likely to arise for destinations and residents (Lim, 2021). People have experienced a protracted period of restraint due to lockdowns in many countries and are eager to yield to their pent-up travel desires. As such, tourists may not be on their best behavior when traveling (Karl et al., 2021).

Incidents in some world-famous tourist destinations, such as Hawaii, Bali, and Rome, illustrate the challenge. These destinations have observed undesirable tourist behaviors since their post-COVID reopening, ranging from the harassment of endangered species and inappropriate selfies (Fang, 2021; Hyde, 2023) to carving names on the Colosseum (Orie, 2023). Destinations urge tourists to learn the rules before their trips and to respect the culture and history of locals (Fang, 2021; Orie, 2023). With the travel boom looming, are destinations ready to welcome tourists back and tolerate their mischief? More importantly, how do people, especially well-behaved tourists, respond to other tourists’ misbehaviors?

Tourist misbehavior captures “acts that violate the generally accepted social norms of conduct—either of their home country/culture and/or the destination they interact with, and cause harm to themselves, and/or others and/or the tourism environment” (Sun et al., 2022, p. 1). Such behavior can occur in various settings and include actions such as queue jumping, littering, damaging landscapes, and making unreasonable requests of service providers (Bhati & Pearce, 2016; Taheri et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2019). For tourists, being away from everyday responsibilities and routines presents a liberating social occasion that encourages them to suspend social norms or behave in a less inhibited manner (Uriely et al., 2011; Wan et al., 2021). This liminality and perceived freedom from usual constraints (Harris & Magrizos, 2023) give rise to a “license to sin”—justification for impulsive behaviors and irrational decisions—during the holiday (Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009). Perceiving money as power and vanity also encourages tourist misbehavior, as people feel entitled to do anything they want, given that they have paid (Li & Chen, 2017).

The reported pervasiveness of tourists violating social norms and negatively disrupting the tourism ecosystem is startling (Sönmez et al., 2006; Volgger & Huang, 2019). Tourist misbehavior can affect the life of host communities (Rafaeli et al., 2012; Shen et al., 2017) and the sustainability of the environment (Juvan et al., 2018), as well as the experience of other non-misbehaving tourists (Tsang et al., 2016; Tsaur et al., 2019). It can also negatively affect the atmosphere of the destination and tourists’ intention to revisit, discourage residents from supporting tourism development, and lead to a clash between tourists and residents (Cheung & Li, 2019; Chien & Ritchie, 2018).

Researchers have argued that customer misbehavior can adversely affect service settings not only through the direct damage it causes but also through additional negative effects arising from the contagion of such misbehavior (Schaefers et al., 2016). Although extant research acknowledges the implications for the tourist experience (e.g., Zhang et al., 2019), other tourists’ perspectives have received limited attention, especially those directly or indirectly related to the misbehaving tourists (e.g., due to shared nationality). Prior studies investigating the influence of tourist misbehavior suggest that the latter group not only feels disturbed by the misbehavior but also experiences a sense of embarrassment (e.g., Wan et al., 2021). These findings highlight the psychological burden put upon individuals, especially when they bear the brunt of criticism from the destination residents (Moufakkir, 2020; Tung et al., 2020), even though they are not directly involved in the misbehavior or present when it occurs.

How do individuals respond to their compatriots’ tourist misbehavior? Zhang et al. (2019) suggest that the feeling of “losing face” in some cultures motivates individuals to carry out prosocial behavior to help repair the damage done by compatriots and change negative perceptions. However, Li and Chen (2017) found that people often remain silent when witnessing transgressive behaviors out of fear of retaliation. Other studies have shown that attribution of responsibility and perceived severity of the misbehavior influence individuals’ actions (Harris & Magrizos, 2023; Rummelhagen & Benkenstein, 2017). Although implied in previous research, the underlying mechanism of such complex processing of compatriot tourists’ misbehavior has not been empirically quantified and validated. Additionally, existing research has focused on the impact of misbehavior on individuals who encounter the incident. Nonetheless, misbehavior can also occur in the absence of a witness, and its contagious effects have not been examined.

Drawing on the social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), the present research proposes and examines a conceptual model that explains people’s evaluation of compatriot tourist misbehavior in the international context. Research in psychology has shown that the social identity theory is a valid framework to explain and predict people’s reactions to ingroup transgressions (e.g., Aberson et al., 2000; Hutchison & Abrams, 2003). We develop a theoretical foundation that considers individuals’ group identification as an underlying mechanism of misbehavior construal. Using two experiments, we provide rigorous empirical evidence of individuals’ evaluation of misbehavior committed by compatriot tourists, identify guilt and shame as the mediators, and show that people’s responses are mainly driven by their identification with the group. Our investigation addresses the limitations of prior exploratory studies. It extends the focus of previous research that evaluated specific tourist misbehaviors (e.g., Sönmez et al., 2006) or explored tourist misbehavior in peculiar contexts (e.g., Tsaur et al., 2019), which might result in idiosyncratic findings. Compatriots’ tourist misbehavior is essentially a form of ingroup deviance, and we advance the conception in international travel as it provides a unique context to study intragroup dynamics when some social norms are temporarily suspended in pursuit of pleasure (Uriely et al., 2011). Practically, gaining a deeper understanding of how people evaluate tourist misbehavior can inform tourism strategies to facilitate desirable tourist behavior and minimize the negative effects of misbehavior.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

Social Identity and Biased Evaluation

The social identity theory holds that people’s sense of who they are is partly defined by the social group to which they belong (Hornsey, 2008; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). As individuals derive self-esteem through identification with their group, they are motivated to retain a positive distinction between their own group (i.e., ingroup) and other groups (i.e., outgroups) by giving ingroup members preferential treatment and defending their collective identity when it is under threat (Aberson et al., 2000). Ingroup and outgroup members are determined by salient characteristics (Hewstone, 1990), such as nationality. In the international travel context, tourists and residents naturally fall into different social groups, given their differentiated national and cultural backgrounds. We draw on social identity theory to understand how people evaluate and respond to the misbehavior of compatriot tourists (i.e., ingroup members) in the presence of residents of the destination involved, as it provides a useful framework to explain and predict individuals’ responses to the ingroup transgressor.

An ingroup transgression is an act by ingroup members that violates accepted norms (Abrams et al., 2013). It can be perceived as a threat to ingroup positivity, as the behavior threatens the integrity or value of the group (Hutchison & Abrams, 2003). When an ingroup transgression occurs, individuals may become more protective of the group image by favoring their ingroup members over outgroup members perceptually, attitudinally, and behaviorally (Terry et al., 2000). Regarding ingroup bias (Aberson et al., 2000), individuals may excuse ingroup transgressors by attributing the transgression to situational factors, rather than to the internal and stable factors characteristic of the ingroup but attribute a similar outgroup transgression in the opposite way (i.e., ultimate attribution error; Hewstone, 1990).

Although individuals tend to bolster evaluations of ingroup members in general, the manifestation of ingroup bias may vary with how strongly they identify with the ingroup. Compared with low-identifiers, individuals who highly identify with the ingroup are more invested in the group’s positive image, perceive the ingroup as more self-conceptually important, and have a stronger need to maintain a positive group image (Hutchison & Abrams, 2003). High-identifiers show stronger ingroup bias and a greater tendency to judge ingroup transgressions leniently (Iyer et al., 2012); they also require more evidence to admit to the misconduct of ingroup members (Miron et al., 2010). Researchers have examined individual assessments of transgressions by group members in fields such as psychology (e.g., Aberson et al., 2000) and sports (e.g., Chien et al., 2016). Hutchison and Abrams (2003) found that psychology students who highly identified as psychologists expressed a more positive stereotype of the psychologist group after reading a story of a deviant psychologist than a story of a normative psychologist. In sports, Chien et al. (2016) demonstrated that after exposure to a scandal, fans (i.e., high-identifiers) discounted ingroup transgressions and continued to show favorable attitudes toward their own team but negatively judged a rival team’s transgressions.

In a similar vein, compatriot tourist misbehavior can be viewed as an ingroup transgression that reflects negatively on the transgressing tourists and threatens the positive image of the entire ingroup, as the transgressing tourist belongs to a clearly defined social group – in international travel, this can be the country from which the tourist comes (Iyer et al., 2012). To protect their collective image, individuals may downplay the significance of the compatriot tourist misbehavior and make a lenient evaluation of ingroup transgressors. For high-identifiers, identification with their home country tends to reinforce ingroup bias, making them less inclined to punish the transgressors than low-identifiers.

Possible damage to the ingroup image may also provoke attempts to manage the impression of the ingroup in the form of prosocial behavior, especially in the presence of outgroups (Estrada-Hollenbeck & Heatherton, 1998). Outgroup helping has been identified as a strategy for improving group image because the underlying positive moral connotations and generosity are effective in disconfirming antisocial characteristics projected on the ingroup (Hopkins et al., 2007). For example, Tung (2019) observed a tendency for residents to use prosocial behavior, such as helping a lost tourist, as a strategy to refute the negative images tourists projected on them. Zhang et al. (2019) also found that tourists are inclined to confront and improve the negative image of the ingroup. Following this reasoning, we expect individuals to carry out prosocial behavior to restore the ingroup image following compatriot tourist misbehavior. As high-identifiers perceive the ingroup as more important, they will be willing to expend more efforts on restoring the positive group image and, therefore, have a stronger intention to carry out prosocial behavior targeting outgroup members (i.e., residents of the destination) than low-identifiers. Thus:

Hypothesis 1: Identification with the ingroup has a (a) positive effect on attitude toward the transgressors, (b) negative effect on the intention to punish the transgressors, and (c) positive effect on the intention to carry out prosocial behaviors toward the destination.

Misbehavior Severity

Individuals’ tendency to favor ingroup members notwithstanding, emerging literature suggests that the tolerance of ingroup transgression depends on the severity of the deviant behavior (e.g., Karelaia & Keck, 2013; Kelly et al., 2018). Although tourist misbehavior has been recognized as differing in severity (Reisinger, 2005) and tourism scholars have attempted to categorize misbehaviors by their level of annoyance (Loi & Pearce, 2015), studies have only recently formally conceptualized severity of tourist misbehavior per se (Sun et al., 2022) and have not empirically examined the impact of it.

Severity can be determined by the magnitude of the harm that a misbehavior inflicts on others (Langhout et al., 2005). Deviant behaviors engendering substantial negative consequences for others (e.g., causing mental or physical harm) reflect high severity, which can influence the degree of punishment deemed appropriate for the transgressor (Karelaia & Keck, 2013). In the organizational behavior literature, Robinson and Bennett (1995) developed a workplace deviant behavior typology. They suggested that behaviors such as “being late for meetings” and “making personal calls” were minor workplace deviances while “withholding important work-related information” and “verbally abusing a co-worker” were major ones because they caused greater harm to production, property, and interpersonal relationships between workers. In sports, studies on team member transgressions have shown that the severity of transgressions can be judged by factors such as the number of players involved (Chien et al., 2016). Operationalizing sport scandal severity as the frequency of occurrence, Kelly et al. (2018) showed that high-severity scandals can result in fans devaluating transgressors and affiliated stakeholders, even if they maintain their identification with the scandalous team.

Sun et al. (2022) conceptualized tourist misbehavior severity as the result of a joint evaluation of social norm violation and harm to others. Tourist misbehavior, such as queue jumping, causes little damage to the environment and/or relevant stakeholders in the tourism ecosystem and may be perceived as “no big deal” with a low level of severity. By contrast, transgressions such as vandalizing a cultural heritage site can cause irreversible harm to the tourism environment and hurt feelings of the destination’s residents; thus, they are deemed to be of a high level of severity. Construal of severity may depend on whether the tourist misbehavior violates group-specific norms or salient generic norms (Sun et al., 2022). The latter are more severe as they threaten the transgressing group’s legitimacy, dilute within-group cohesion, and undermine group distinctiveness in intergroup comparisons (Jetten & Hornsey, 2014).

We propose that severity of the tourist misbehavior creates a boundary condition for the ingroup bias effect. Specifically, high-severity misbehavior gives rise to the black sheep effect, a phenomenon when individuals punish ingroup transgressors more harshly than outgroup ones who commit similar transgressions if they perceive the ingroup transgressors as risking the legitimacy of the positive social identity (Iyer et al., 2012; Marques et al., 2001). Previous research has shown that devaluing and excluding the ingroup transgressor serves to uphold group perceptions and restores important group norms (Bown & Abrams, 2003). Hornsey and Jetten (2003) found that vegetarians evaluated people who claimed to be vegetarians but ate meat occasionally more negatively than non-vegetarians. Similarly, when evaluating a sports scandal, fans of the scandalous team blamed the transgressors but maintained a favorable evaluation of the team (Chien et al., 2016). In tourism, Zhang et al. (2019) explored Chinese tourists’ reflections on compatriot tourists’ uncivilized behaviors and implied the existence of the black sheep effect. They found that Chinese tourists distanced themselves from the misbehaving tourists by depicting transgressors as older, undereducated, and package tour consumers with low income while portraying themselves as well-educated visitors with high income.

High-identifiers are generally more sensitive to group threats than low-identifiers because they have internalized their group membership as a key aspect of their self-concept (Hutchison & Abrams, 2003). We propose that misbehavior severity moderates the relationship between ingroup identification and individuals’ responses to compatriot tourist misbehavior. As a coping strategy to enhance the perception of the ingroup’s positive stereotype (Hutchison et al., 2008), high-identifiers will have more lenient evaluations of the transgressors than low-identifiers for low-severity misbehavior. They will be motivated to carry out prosocial behavior, but the relationship will reverse for high-severity misbehavior. As excluding the transgressors (i.e., the black sheep) from their representation of the ingroup helps maintain a positive group identity, carrying out prosocial behavior in the face of high-severity misbehavior will not be necessary. Thus:

Hypothesis 2a: Misbehavior severity moderates the relationship between ingroup identification and attitude toward the transgressors, such that this relationship is stronger when severity is low rather than high.

Hypothesis 2b: Misbehavior severity moderates the relationship between identification with the ingroup and intention to punish the transgressors, such that this relationship is stronger when severity is low rather than high.

Hypothesis 2c: Misbehavior severity moderates the relationship between ingroup identification and intention to carry out prosocial behavior, such that this relationship is stronger when severity is low rather than high.

Mediating Role of Emotions

As individuals derive part of their self-concept from the social groups they belong to, they can experience psychological distress when the ingroup is involved in illegitimate acts, even in the absence of personal responsibility for these actions (Piff et al., 2012). Emotions can play an important role when appraising ingroup transgressions and predicting action tendencies in the intergroup context (Shepherd et al., 2013). While anger motivates behaviors directed at agents perceived as responsible for a transgression (Mackie et al., 2016), guilt fosters behaviors that compensate and comfort the harmed parties (Estrada-Hollenbeck & Heatherton, 1998). The activation of shame, by contrast, involves concerns with the self-image after transgressions, which drives individuals to avoid uncomfortable shame-provoking situations (Johns et al., 2005). As anger, guilt, and shame reflect different appraisal patterns underlying individuals’ responses to ingroup transgressions, we extend previous work (e.g., Tsang et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2019) and investigate the mediating roles of these self-critical emotions simultaneously in individuals’ responses to compatriot tourist misbehavior.

Anger

Anger is an intense emotional reaction directed at an entity perceived to be responsible for a transgression (Mackie et al., 2016) and is associated with action readiness (Shepherd et al., 2013). Although anger is typically felt toward outgroups that have harmed the ingroup, individuals can also feel angry with their own group when they believe that the ingroup is responsible for inflicting harm on an outgroup (Iyer et al., 2007). The more importance individuals attach to group membership, the stronger the emotions they will experience on behalf of the ingroup (Doosje et al., 2006). High-identifiers may experience stronger anger than low-identifiers as transgressions reflect poorly on their collective image. Anger, as an agnostic emotion, further provokes coping strategies, such as punishing and harming the source of anger (i.e., transgressor) to show disagreement with their behavior (Harmeling et al., 2015; Shepherd et al., 2013).

Moreover, individuals who feel angry tend to act instinctively rather than systematically assessing the situation (Harmeling et al., 2015). Therefore, anger may not evoke prosocial behavior targeting the destination, as using prosocial behavior to improve the ingroup’s collective image requires a careful analysis of costs and benefits (Hopkins et al., 2007). We hypothesize that anger mediates the effect of ingroup identification, such that high identification is associated with higher arousal of anger, which boosts the devaluation and punishment of the transgressors. Anger is not expected to work on promoting prosocial behaviors targeted at the destination involved.

Guilt

Guilt is a moral emotion that often occurs when individuals feel responsible for the negative situation of others (Estrada-Hollenbeck & Heatherton, 1998). Sometimes, individuals are not personally responsible for others’ negative situations. However, they may still feel guilty because the transgressors are part of their ingroup (a premise to feel guilt by association) (Doosje et al., 2006). Guilt, as a retreating emotion, highlights a desire to avoid such an aversive emotion and motivates individuals to prevent transgressions (Shepherd et al., 2013) while boosting victim-oriented concerns (Estrada-Hollenbeck & Heatherton, 1998). On one hand, guilt motivates people to punish and derogate the transgressors as a strategy to avoid transgressions from happening again.

On the other hand, guilt drives individuals to engage in compensating actions that minimize harm and repair the relationship with other groups (Iyer et al., 2007). We expect guilt to mediate the effect of ingroup identification and individuals, especially high-identifiers, to feel more guilty on behalf of their ingroup when facing compatriot tourists’ misbehavior. Individuals experiencing guilt are less likely to exculpate transgressors (Doosje et al., 2006) but are more likely to carry out prosocial behaviors as a means of reparation.

Shame

Unlike anger and guilt, which largely focus on the appraisal of the transgressive action itself and responsibility of the misbehavior, shame, as another retreating emotion, puts a unique emphasis on how the ingroup misbehavior reflects poorly on the entire group (Estrada-Hollenbeck & Heatherton, 1998). Individuals who feel shame tend to attribute the misbehavior to aspects of their ingroup (e.g., “We are bad people”; Lickel et al., 2005). In other words, shame is associated with greater self-consciousness than anger and guilt, leading to different action intentions (Iyer et al., 2007). The feeling of shame activates fear of the image threat that transgressions pose for the ingroup and elicits attempts to distance themselves from the source of the identity threat (Harmeling et al., 2015). As such, shame provokes actions that serve to repair social identity (Shepherd et al., 2013), and individuals who feel ashamed by their ingroup’s transgressions are more likely to seek to punish and devaluate the transgressors while actively carrying out prosocial behavior toward the harmed group for impression management purposes (Estrada-Hollenbeck & Heatherton, 1998). We hypothesize that similar to guilt, shame mediates the effect of ingroup identification on all three attitudinal and behavioral responses.

The preceding discussion suggests that high-identifiers are likely to experience higher emotional arousal (anger, guilt, and shame) than low-identifiers due to their identity investment in the group and, therefore, their sense of common threat or collective responsibility for poor group image. All three emotional reactions motivate people to prevent transgressive actions by derogating and punishing deviant members who misbehave. Guilt and shame further encourage people to carry out prosocial behavior to compensate for the harm done and restore a positive ingroup image. Thus:

Hypothesis 3: Anger mediates the relationship between ingroup identification and (a) attitude toward the transgressors and (b) intention to punish the transgressors.

Hypothesis 4: Guilt mediates the relationship between ingroup identification and (a) attitude toward the transgressors, (b) intention to punish the transgressors, and (c) intention to carry out prosocial behavior.

Hypothesis 5: Shame mediates the relationship between ingroup identification and (a) attitude toward the transgressors, (b) intention to punish the transgressors, and (c) intention to carry out prosocial behavior.

Research Overview

Two experimental studies served to test the proposed model (see Figure 1). To establish the robustness of the relationships observed, Study 1 examines two types of tourist misbehaviors that differ in severity (conducted in October 2020). Study 2 provides a more stringent test and replicates the effects using tourist misbehaviors that violate generic norms but differ in severity (conducted in January 2021).

Figure 1.

Conceptual model and hypotheses.

Study 1

Study 1 examines whether identification with the ingroup affects people’s attitudes toward ingroup transgressors, intention to punish transgressors, and intention to carry out prosocial behavior (H1). Study 1 also tests the moderating effect of misbehavior severity (H2) and the mediating roles of anger (H3), guilt (H4), and shame (H5).

Pretests

We conducted Pretest 1 to select a well-liked and familiar country that is culturally distinct from the United States, as the tourist-originating country used in the main studies. Thirty U.S. adults with overseas travel experience participated in the study via the Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) online consumer panel.

We initially selected six popular destinations for U.S. outbound tourists (i.e., Japan, India, China, the United Kingdom, Italy, and France) from the outbound market profiles provided by the National Travel and Tourism Office (2018). Participants rated their attitudes toward each destination country on three 7-point semantic differential scales (1 = negative/unfavorable/bad, 7 = positive/favorable/good; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). We measured familiarity with the destination with two 7-point semantic differential scales (1 = very unfamiliar/not knowledgeable, 7 = very familiar/very knowledgeable; Carrillat et al., 2010). We assessed the cultural distance between these countries and the United States with a 7-point semantic differential scale (1 = very different, 7 = very similar; Ng et al., 2007). We selected Japan as the destination country because of its large cultural distance from the United States, favorable attitudes, and familiarity.

We carried Pretest 2 to select tourist misbehaviors perceived to be severe/less severe. From a review of news reports between 2016 and 2020, we identified being rowdy in a park as the low-severity misbehavior and damaging a cherry blossom tree as the high-severity misbehavior. We examined the perceptions of 39 U.S. outbound tourists via MTurk. The result of a one-way ANOVA showed that participants perceived damaging a cherry blossom tree (M_high = 5.57, SD = 0.98) as a significantly more severe tourist misbehavior than being noisy in the park (M_low = 4.06, SD = 1.80; F(1, 37) = 11.12, p = .002), suggesting the successful manipulation of misbehavior severity.

Design and Participants

Study 1 employed a single-factor (misbehavior severity: low vs. high) between-subjects design, with identification with the ingroup (United States) as the key independent variable. Emotions were measured and used as mediators. In total, 328 U.S. adults (45% female, M_age = 40.8 years) with overseas travel experience participated in Study 1. All participants were U.S. citizens with English as their first language, had both parents born in the United States, and had traveled overseas in the past 3 years.

Procedure and Stimuli

We manipulated misbehavior severity using a fictitious news article (see Appendix 1). The article described a group of U.S. tourists damaging a cherry blossom tree (high-severity condition) or being rowdy (low-severity condition) in a Japanese park. Each news article consisted of four paragraphs. The first introduced Japan as a destination country, the second and third provided details about the misbehavior and the resulting harm, and the fourth presented generic statements about tourism in Japan.

Participants accessed the study via an MTurk link. After completing the qualifying questions, they were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental conditions and asked to review the news article. Afterward, they responded to the dependent measures and demographic questions. Upon completion of the study, they were debriefed and told that the news articles were created for the study. The study took approximately 10 min to complete.

Measures

All measures used were the same as in the pretests (see Appendix 2). The descriptive statistics are provided in Appendix 3.

Independent Variable

We measured identification with the ingroup (α > .85) with a five-item, 7-point, Likert scale adopted from Mael and Ashforth (1992). Participants answered questions such as “When someone criticizes American people, it feels like a personal insult” and “When I talk about American people, I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they’” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree).

Mediators

Following Iyer et al. (2007), we assessed emotions using 7-point semantic differential scales: anger (1 = not at all angry/not at all irate/not at all incensed/not at all furious, 7 = extremely angry/extremely irate/extremely incensed/extremely furious; α = .98), guilt (1 = not at all guilty/not at all remorseful/not at all regretful, 7 = extremely guilty/extremely remorseful/extremely regretful; α = .92), and shame (1 = not at all ashamed/not at all disgraced/not at all humiliated/not at all embarrassed/not at all shamefaced, 7 = extremely ashamed/extremely disgraced/extremely humiliated/extremely embarrassed/extremely shamefaced; α > .96).

Dependent Variables

We measured attitude toward the transgressors (Att_trans) with a three-item 7-point semantic differential scale (1 = negative/unfavorable/bad, 7 = positive/favorable/good; α > .98; Ruth & Simonin, 2006). We developed the scale for intention to punish the transgressors (Intention_punish) for this study and measured it with a three-item, 7-point, Likert scale: “These American tourists should be banned from traveling overseas,” “These American tourists should apologize for their behavior,” and “These American tourists should provide monetary compensation for the harm done” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree; α > .68).

We operationalized intention to carry out prosocial behavior targeting the destination (Intention_prosocial) as outgroup helping (Tung, 2019). Participants rated the following items on a 7-point Likert scale: “Help Japanese people in need within my reach if I were to travel to Japan,” “Give money to a charity specifically for helping Japanese people in need,” and “Pick up litter on the street and throw it in the trash bin if I were to travel to Japan” (1 = extremely unlikely, 7 = extremely likely; α > .71).

Covariates

Participants indicated their attitude toward the destination (Att_des; α > .96), familiarity with the destination (Fam_des; α > .94), and perceived cultural distance between the United States and Japan (Culture_US-JP). These served as covariates.

Manipulation Check

An independent samples t-test showed that misbehavior severity scores differed significantly across the two severity conditions, t(326) = 7.00, p < .001). Participants perceived damaging a cherry blossom tree (M_{high-severity} = 5.31, SD = 1.50) as significantly more severe than being rowdy in the park (M_low-severity = 4.25, SD = 1.24), indicating the successful manipulation of misbehavior severity.

Data Analysis Approach

We tested the impact of ingroup identification on people’s responses to the transgressors and the destination involved, and the moderating role of misbehavior severity and the mediating role of emotions in this relationship, using PROCESS Model 5 (Hayes, 2018). We tested three PROCESS models, one for each of the three outcome variables: attitude toward the transgressors, intention to punish the transgressors, and intention to carry out prosocial behavior. Prior attitude toward the destination (Att_des), familiarity with the destination (Fam_des), and perceived cultural distance (Culture_US-JP) were covariates in these models. We measured ingroup identification and mean-centered it for the moderation analysis. If the interaction between ingroup identification and misbehavior severity was not significant, we estimated the indirect effects through emotions using PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2018) and included misbehavior severity as a covariate.

Model A: Attitude Toward the Transgressors

Direct Effects

Ingroup identification had a significant, positive effect on attitude toward the transgressors (b = 0.34, p = .014), indicating support for H1a. Anger (b = −0.25, p < .001), guilt (b = 0.12, p = .009), and shame (b = −0.13, p = .011) were also significant predictors of Att_trans. The covariates Att_des (b = −0.20, p < .001), Fam_des (b = 0.14, p = .001), and Culture_US-JP (b = 0.21, p < .001) predicted Att_trans. These variables collectively explained the sizable variance (R² = 27.0%) in Att_trans, F(9, 318) = 13.07, p < .001 (see Table 1). Ingroup identification had a significant, positive effect on guilt (b = 0.24, p = .002) and shame (b = 0.20, p = .005) but not anger (p = .260).

Table 1.

Study 1: Results of Model A, Model B, and Model C (N = 328).

Outcome
	Anger		Guilt		Shame		Att_trans		Intention_punish		Intention_prosocial
	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p
Constant	4.82	<.001	2.89	<.001	3.48	<.001	3.05	<.001	0.33	.346	2.07	<.001
ID	0.07	.260	0.24	.002	0.20	.005	0.34	.014	0.02	.872	0.40	.007
MS							0.09	.469	1.30	<.001	−0.06	.627
ID × MS							−0.14	.120	−0.12	.159	−0.21	.031
PAD	0.11	.104	0.17	.036	0.21	.008	−0.20	<.001	0.03	.490	0.21	<.001
FWD	−0.07	.180	−0.01	.827	−0.06	.384	0.14	.001	0.02	.523	0.12	.006
CDD	−0.02	.793	0.01	.871	0.04	.619	0.21	<.001	−0.04	.322	0.05	.293
Anger							−0.25	<.001	0.39	<.001
Guilt							0.12	.009	0.06	.203	0.19	<.001
Shame							−0.13	.011	0.003	.960	0.07	.201
	R ²	1.4%	R ²	4.5%	R ²	4.6%	R ²	27.0%	R ²	54.8%	R ²	26.6%

Note. ID = identification with the ingroup; MS = misbehavior severity; PAD = pre-existing attitude toward the destination; FWD = familiarity with the destination; CDD = cultural distance with the destination; Att_trans = attitude toward the transgressors; Intention_punish = intention to punish the transgressors; Intention_prosocial = intention to carry out prosocial behavior targeting the destination. Table displays the results of PROCESS Model 5. If the interaction between ID and MS was not significant, we reported the results of PROCESS Model 4 for the indirect effects in the text.

Interaction Effect

The impact of ingroup identification on attitude toward transgressors did not vary with misbehavior severity (p = .120). This result does not provide support for H2a.

Indirect Effects

The indirect effect of identification with the ingroup on attitude toward transgressors, through guilt, was positive and significant (a × b = 0.03), with a 95% bootstrapped confidence interval (CI) excluding zero [0.006, 0.062]. In contrast, the indirect effect through shame was negative and significant (a × b = −0.03), with a 95% bootstrapped CI [–0.062, –0.002] excluding zero. The indirect effect through anger was not significant, with a 95% bootstrapped CI including zero [–0.064, 0.003]. Guilt and shame were significant mediators of the relationship between ingroup identification and attitude toward transgressors, indicating support for H4a and H5a but not for H3a. These results indicate partial mediation.

Model B: Intention to Punish the Transgressors

Direct Effects

Ingroup identification was not a significant predictor of intention to punish the transgressors (p = .872), failing to support H1b. Anger (b = 0.39, p < .001) was a significant predictor of Intention_punish, but guilt (p = .203) and shame (p = .960) were not. None of the covariates, Att_des (p = .490), Fam_des (p = .523), or Culture_US-JP (p = .322), predicted Intention_punish significantly (see Table 1). These variables collectively explained the sizable variance (R² = 54.8%) in Intention_punish, F (9, 318) = 42.91, p < .001. Ingroup identification had a significant, positive effect on guilt (b = 0.24, p = .002) and shame (b = 0.20, p = .005) but not anger (p = .260).

Interaction Effect

The effect of ingroup identification on Intention_punish did not vary by misbehavior severity (p = .159). Thus, H2b was not supported.

Indirect Effects

The indirect effects of ingroup identification on Intention_punish through anger, guilt, and shame were not significant, with a 95% bootstrapped CI including zero [–0.005, 0.093], [–0.009, 0.039] and [–0.020, 0.026] respectively. Thus, H3b, H4b, and H5b were not supported.

Model C: Intention to Carry Out Prosocial Behavior

Direct Effects

Ingroup identification had a significant, positive effect on intention to carry out prosocial behavior (b = 0.40, p = .007), supporting H1c. Guilt (b = 0.19, p < .001) had a significant, positive effect on Intention_prosocial, but shame did not (p = .201). Of the covariates, Att_des (b = 0.21, p < .001) and Fam_des (b = 0.12, p = .006) predicted Intention_prosocial, but Culture_US-JP did not (p = .293). These variables collectively explained the sizable variance (R² = 26.6%) in Intention_prosocial, F(8, 319) = 14.42, p < .001 (see Table 1). Ingroup identification also significantly affected guilt (b = 0.24, p = .002) and shame (b = 0.20, p = .005).

Interaction Effect

The impact of ingroup identification on Intention_prosocial varied by misbehavior severity (b = −0.21, p = .031, R²_change = 1.1%). The effect of ingroup identification was weaker for the high-severity misbehavior than the low-severity misbehavior. Ingroup identification affected Intention_prosocial only when misbehavior severity was low (b = 0.20, p = .003), with a 95% bootstrapped CI excluding zero [0.065, 0.328]. Ingroup identification did not affect Intention_prosocial significantly when misbehavior severity was high (p = .877; see Figure 2); thus, H2c is supported.

Figure 2.

Interaction effect of misbehavior severity and identification with the ingroup on intention to carry out prosocial behavior (Study 1).

Indirect Effects

The indirect effect of ingroup identification on Intention_prosocial through guilt was positive and significant (a × b = 0.05), with a 95% bootstrapped CI excluding zero [0.012, 0.087], confirming H4c. In contrast, the indirect effect through shame was not significant, with a 95% bootstrapped CI including zero [–0.009, 0.042]. Thus, H5c was not supported. Ingroup identification positively affected Intention_prosocial both directly and indirectly through guilt, and the direct effect was observed only when misbehavior severity was low. Table 1 summarizes the results of Models A, B, and C.

Discussion

We found that to maintain a positive social identity when facing collective threats, individuals displayed ingroup favoritism and intragroup differentiation simultaneously in response to misbehavior committed by compatriot tourists. Consistent with the literature (Iyer et al., 2012), high-identifiers had more positive evaluations of the ingroup than low-identifiers. However, individuals’ attitudes toward transgressors remained less favorable regardless of misbehavior severity, suggesting that they viewed misbehaving tourists as ingroup deviants who threatened group positivity and cohesion and, therefore, should be devaluated (Jetten & Hornsey, 2014).

While the intention to punish the transgressors did not vary with ingroup identification, high-identifiers displayed a stronger intention to carry out prosocial behavior than low-identifiers, but only when the misbehavior was of low severity. Different motivations might underlie the denigration of transgressors (Marques et al., 2001). Individuals showed relatively inclusive responses to the transgressors who committed a low-severity misbehavior; therefore, prosocial behavior was a way to restore a positive group image. Conversely, when misbehavior severity was high, individuals appeared to isolate the responsibility for the misbehavior to the transgressors to avoid ingroup positivity being compromised (Chien et al., 2016). Excluding undesirable members from the representation of the ingroup became an effective strategy to protect group identity (Hutchison et al., 2008). As the transgressors were no longer considered part of the ingroup, individuals did not intend to expend efforts on prosocial behaviors.

We found that guilt and shame were key emotions underlying individuals’ responses to compatriot tourist misbehaviors. Guilt was strengthened by high identification with the ingroup and subsequently affected attitude toward the transgressors and intention to carry out prosocial behavior. This finding corroborates existing studies that identify guilt as a moral emotion activated when individuals perceive an association with the transgressors (Iyer et al., 2007), which fosters prosocial behaviors as means of compensation (Estrada-Hollenbeck & Heatherton, 1998). Similarly, shame was augmented by ingroup identification. The shared group membership with the transgressors led to embarrassment by association, which in turn had a negative effect on attitude toward transgressors (Hutchison et al., 2008; Lickel et al., 2005). After guilt and shame transmitted the impact of ingroup identification on to attitude toward the transgressors and intention to carry out prosocial behavior, anger did not play a mediating role. Anger did not vary by ingroup identification, partly because anger directed at the transgressors following a transgression can be intense regardless of group membership (Frijda, 1986) and partly because inducing anger under an experimental condition often requires specific techniques (e.g., role play; Felnhofer et al., 2015) or multiple exposures (Dasgupta et al., 2009). Therefore, we excluded anger from Study 2.

In Study 1, participants were also asked to indicate whether the misbehavior they had evaluated was acceptable per the norms in the home and destination countries using the following item on a 7-point Likert scale: “The tourist behavior reported in the news article is in line with generally accepted norms of conduct in American/Japan” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). A one-sample t-test (M_cutoff = 4.0) showed that participants perceived the low-severity misbehavior (being rowdy in public) as violating norms of conduct in Japan (M_Japan = 2.06, SD = 1.26; t(162) = −19.66, p < .001) but being in line with norms in the United States (M_US = 4.27, SD = 1.63; t(162) = 2.12, p = .036) (M_cutoff = 4.0). Conversely, they viewed the high-severity misbehavior (damaging cherry blossom trees) as violating norms in both Japan (M_Japan = 1.53; SD = 1.06; t(164) = −30.06, p < .001) and the United States (M_US = 2.47; SD = 1.52; t(164) = −12.99, p < .001) (M_cutoff = 4.0). These findings suggest that the type of social norms violated (group-specific or generic norms) might have been confounded by misbehavior severity (Marques et al., 2001). Thus, to rule out alternative explanations and further understand the nuanced effect of misbehavior severity, Study 2 controlled for the social norms being violated.

Study 2

Study 2 aims to replicate Study 1. As misbehaviors violating generic norms are universally applicable and cannot be easily downplayed by either ingroup or outgroup members (Sun et al., 2022), we used them as experimental stimuli.

Pretesting

We conducted Pretest 3 (N = 35) to ensure that causing property damage and littering are considered undesirable tourist behaviors that violate social norms universally but differ in misbehavior severity. Based on the pretest findings, we developed the fictitious news articles that described the misbehavior by some U.S. tourists either carving names on a cultural heritage site (high-severity condition; M_{high-severity} = 5.83, SD = 1.20) or littering at a cultural heritage site (low-severity condition, M_low-severity = 4.35, SD = 1.27; t(33) = 3.54, p = .001).

Design and Participants

Study 2 followed the same experimental design, procedure, and measures as Study 1, except that it excluded anger as a mediator. In total, 296 U.S. adults participated in Study 2 via MTurk (50% female, M_age = 37.7 years). The descriptive statistics are available in Appendix 4.

Manipulation Check

An independent samples t-test showed that misbehavior severity scores differed significantly across conditions (M_low-severity = 4.64, SD = 1.35; M_{high-severity} = 5.82, SD = 1.19; t(294) = 7.96, p < .001). The results of one-sample t-tests (M_cutoff = 4.0) revealed that participants perceived littering at a cultural heritage site as violating the norms of conduct in both Japan (M_Japan = 2.32; SD = 1.73; t(149) = −11.91, p < .001) and the United States (M_US = 3.27; SD = 1.70; t(149) = −5.28, p < .001). Similarly, they viewed carving names on a cultural heritage site as violating norms of conduct in both countries (M_Japan = 1.88, SD = 1.57, t(145) = −16.34, p < .001; M_US = 2.53, SD = 1.67, t(145) = −10.63, p < .001) (M_cutoff = 4.0), confirming the universal unacceptability of the misbehaviors depicted in both conditions. We employed the same data analysis approach as in Study 1.

Model A: Attitude Toward the Transgressors

Direct Effects

Ingroup identification was not a significant predictor of attitude toward the transgressors (p = .513), failing to support H1a. Guilt (b = 0.18, p = .005) had a significant, positive effect on Att_trans, while shame had a significant, negative effect (b = −0.24, p < .001). The covariates Att_des (b = −0.18, p = .007), Fam_des (b = 0.10, p = .046), and Culture_US-JP (b = 0.26, p < .001) predicted Att_trans. These variables collectively explained the sizable variance (R² = 20.9%) in Att_trans, F(8, 287) = 9.47, p < .001. Ingroup identification had a significant, positive effect on both guilt (b = 0.47, p < .001) and shame (b = 0.33, p < .001). Table 2 shows the results of Study 2.

Table 2.

Study 2: Results of Model A, Model B, and Model C (N = 296).

Outcome
	Guilt		Shame		Att_trans		Intention_punish		Intention_prosocial
	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p	b	p
Constant	3.11	<.001	3.61	<.001	2.63	<.001	2.99	<.001	2.34	<.001
ID	0.47	<.001	0.33	<.001	−0.12	.513	−0.14	.363	−0.03	.865
MS					−0.28	.063	1.03	<.001	−0.09	.493
ID × MS					0.17	.148	−0.01	.948	0.05	.609
PAD	0.12	.157	0.20	.019	–.18	.007	−0.06	.212	0.14	.015
FWD	−0.07	.313	−0.06	.317	0.10	.046	0.03	.454	0.18	<.001
CDD	0.22	.001	0.11	.084	0.26	<.001	−0.004	.992	0.02	.736
Guilt					0.18	.005	−0.04	.440	0.06	.249
Shame					−0.24	<.001	0.24	<.001	0.16	.006
	R ²	14.9%	R ²	9.0%	R ²	20.9%	R ²	32.0%	R ²	22.6%

Note. ID = identification with the ingroup; MS = misbehavior severity; PAD = pre-existing attitude toward the destination; FWD = familiarity with the destination; CDD = cultural distance with the destination; Att_trans = attitude toward the transgressors; Intention_punish = intention to punish the transgressors; Intention_prosocial = intention to carry out prosocial behavior targeting destination. Table displays the results of PROCESS Model 5. If the interaction between ID and MS was not significant, we reported the results of PROCESS Model 4 for the indirect effects in the text.

Interaction Effect

The impact of ingroup identification on Att_trans did not vary by misbehavior severity (p = .063), failing to support H2a.

Indirect Effects

The indirect effect of ingroup identification on Att_trans through guilt was positive and significant (a × b = 0.09), with a 95% bootstrapped CI excluding zero [0.031, 0.152]. The indirect effect of ingroup identification on Att_trans through shame was negative and significant (a × b= −0.08), with a 95% bootstrapped CI excluding zero [–0.147, –0.037]. Thus, consistent with Study 1, guilt and shame mediated the relationship between ingroup identification and Att_trans, providing support for H4a and H5a.

Model B: Intention to Punish the Transgressors

Direct Effects

Ingroup identification was not a significant predictor of intention to punish the transgressors (p = .363), failing to support H1b. Shame (b = 0.24, p < .001) had a significant, positive effect on the intention to punish the transgressors. Guilt did not predict Intention_punish (p = .440). None of the covariates, Att_des (p = .212), Fam_des (p = .454), or Culture_US-JP (p = .992), predicted Intention_punish. These variables collectively explained the sizable variance (R² = 32.0%) in Intention_punish, F(8, 287) = 16.87, p < .001. Ingroup identification had a significant, positive effect on both guilt (b = 0.47, p < .001) and shame (b = 0.33, p < .001).

Interaction Effect

The interaction between ingroup identification and misbehavior severity was not significant (p = .948). Thus, H2b was not supported.

Indirect Effects

The indirect effect of ingroup identification on Intention_punish through shame was positive and significant (a × b = 0.08), with a 95% bootstrapped CI excluding zero [0.038, 0.139], supporting H5b. The indirect effect of ingroup identification on Intention_punish through guilt was not significant, with a 95% bootstrapped CI including zero [–0.062, 0.025], thus not offering support for H4b.

Model C: Intention to Carry Out Prosocial Behavior

Direct Effects

Ingroup identification (p = .865) was not a significant predictor of the intention to carry out prosocial behavior, failing to support H1c. Shame (b = 0.16, p = .006) had a significant, positive effect on Intention_prosocial, but guilt did not (p = .249). Of the covariates, Att_des (b = 0.14, p = .015) and Fam_des (b = 0.18, p < .001) predicted Intention_punish, but Culture_US-JP did not (p = .736). These variables collectively explained the sizable variance (R² = 22.6%) in Intention_prosocial, F(8, 287) = 10.46, p < .001. Ingroup identification had a significant, positive effect on both guilt (b = 0.47, p < .001) and shame (b = 0.33, p < .001).

Interaction Effect

Misbehavior severity did not moderate the impact of ingroup identification on intention to carry out prosocial behavior (p = .609). Thus, H2c was not supported.

Indirect Effects

The indirect effect of ingroup identification on intention to carry out prosocial behavior, through guilt, was not significant, with a 95% bootstrapped CI including zero [–0.018, 0.090]. The indirect effect of ingroup identification on intention to carry out prosocial behavior, through shame, was positive and significant (a × b = 0.06), with a 95% bootstrapped CI excluding zero [0.010, 0.110]. These results provided support for H5c but not H4c.

Discussion

We observed the same indirect effects of ingroup identification on individuals’ attitudes toward transgressors through guilt and shame when the misbehavior violated generic norms. Consistent with Study 1, ingroup identification did not determine the intention to punish the transgressors, highlighting the robustness of the effect.

Contrasting the results of Study 1, the moderating effect of misbehavior severity on intention to carry out prosocial behavior dissipated in Study 2, implying that the type of violated social norms, rather than misbehavior severity, might have influenced individuals’ intention to behave prosocially after being exposed to compatriot tourist misbehavior in Study 1. Moreover, the finding can also be explained by the mediating effect of shame. This moral emotion emerged as an intervening mechanism when the breached social norms were salient to both the ingroup and outgroup. Because the public display of counter-normative acts threatened the stable functioning and legitimacy of ingroup distinctiveness in the context of intergroup comparison, individuals might have been concerned about how others perceive them given their association with the transgressors (Chekroun & Nugier, 2011). Consequently, concerns about self-representation and arousal of collective shame triggered the image-repairing process. For high-identifiers, shame motivated punishment of the transgressors to protect the self from further devaluation and replaced guilt as the mediator to promote prosocial behaviors when compatriot tourist misbehavior violated generic norms (Piff et al., 2012).

General Discussion

The nature of international travel encourages people to temporarily suspend responsibilities and some social norms, giving rise to a “license to sin” (Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009) and tourist misbehavior, which can have far-reaching consequences for the destination, its residents, and other tourists, especially the tourists with shared characteristics with those misbehaving. Although studies have examined the effect of tourist misbehavior from the residents’ perspective, evaluation of tourist misbehavior from other non-misbehaving tourists’ perspective is limited (e.g., Tsaur et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). In particular, empirical evidence of how individuals evaluate their compatriots’ tourist misbehavior is essential to stopping misbehavior from spiraling and to reduce the tension and potential conflicts between tourists and residents (Sun et al., 2022).

We respond to calls to investigate the processes underlying individuals’ responses to tourist misbehavior (Chien & Ritchie, 2018) and address the limitations of prior exploratory and correlational studies using experiments. A summary of the findings of Study 1 and Study 2 is included in Table 3. Our research contributes to the knowledge of tourist misbehavior by studying the phenomenon from the lens of non-misbehaving tourists who share characteristics with the transgressors. Across two studies, we examined individuals’ evaluations of and responses to tourist misbehaviors that differed in severity and revealed emotions as mediating mechanisms underlying people’s evaluation of compatriot tourist misbehavior. We also contribute to the ingroup deviance literature by further developing the theory in a unique context to study intragroup dynamics when some social norms are temporarily suspended for the pursuit of pleasure.

Table 3.

Summary of Findings.

Hypotheses	Study 1	Study 2	Supported?	Remarks
Attitude toward the transgressors (Att_trans) (Model A)
H1a ID→ Att_trans	P	×	No
H2a ID × MS→Att_trans	×	×	No
H3a ID→Anger→Att_trans	×	Not tested	No
H4a ID→Guilt→Att_trans	✓	✓	Yes	• Identification with the ingroup positively affects attitudes toward transgressors indirectly via guilt.
H5a ID→Shame→Att_trans	✓	✓	Yes	• Identification with the ingroup negatively affects attitudes toward transgressors indirectly via shame.
Intention to punish the transgressors (Intention_punish) (Model B)
H1b ID→Intention_punish	×	×	No
H2b ID × MS→Intention_punish	×	×	No
H3b ID→Anger→Intention_punish	×	Not tested	No
H4b ID→Guilt→Intention_punish	×	×	No
H5b ID→Shame→Intention_punish	×	✓	Partially supported	• Identification with the ingroup positively affects intention to punish the transgressors, indirectly via shame only in Study 2.
Intention to carry out prosocial behavior (Intention_prosocial) (Model C)
H1c ID→Intention_prosocial	✓	×	No
H2c ID × MS→Intention_prosocial	✓	×	Partially supported	• Identification with the ingroup positively affects intention to carry out prosocial behavior when the misbehavior severity is low, but not when the misbehavior severity is high, only in Study 1.
H4c ID→Guilt→Intention_prosocial	✓	×	Partially supported	• Identification with the ingroup positively affects intention to carry out prosocial behavior indirectly via guilt only in Study 1.
H5c ID→Shame→Intention_prosocial	×	✓	Partially supported	• Identification with the ingroup positively affects intention to carry out prosocial behavior indirectly via shame only in Study 2.

Note. ID = identification with the ingroup; MS = misbehavior severity; Att_trans = attitude toward the transgressors; Intention_punish = intention to punish the transgressors; Intention_prosocial = intention to carry out prosocial behavior targeting the destination.

Ingroup Identification Matters

Through two experiments, we found that ingroup bias and intragroup differentiation (i.e., black sheep effect) simultaneously affect individuals’ evaluations of and responses to compatriot tourist misbehavior. In line with studies investigating the effects of ingroup identification (Chien et al., 2016), our findings show that although individuals view ingroup transgressors as black sheep and evaluate them unfavorably in general, high identification with the ingroup results in relatively lenient criticism of these transgressors compared with low identification with the ingroup. The belief that people have a “license to sin” during the holiday (Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009) might have helped downplay the implication of compatriot tourist misbehavior. The findings advance the conception that the black sheep effect serves as a sophisticated form of ingroup favoritism (Marques et al., 2001), “whereby individuals must reconcile their knowledge of the existence of undesirable ingroup members with their motivation to uphold a favorable view of the ingroup as a whole” (Pinto et al., 2010, p. 107). Consistent with the qualitative work of Zhang et al. (2019), our results show that while denigrating and punishing misbehaving compatriots serves as a strategy to show disagreement with the misbehavior, restate important group norms, persuade transgressors to change their undesirable behavior, and protect ingroup positivity (Hutchison et al., 2008), ingroup bias continues to play a role when misbehaviors occur during holiday.

Although high identification with the ingroup leads to lenient evaluations of ingroup transgressors, our findings show that it increases individuals’ intention to carry out prosocial behavior to benefit the destination involved. Prior research (Tung, 2019) indicates that residents use prosocial behavior as a strategy to refute the negative perceptions tourists project on them. Similarly, we demonstrate that tourists can undertake prosocial behavior to restore ingroup positivity following compatriot tourist misbehavior. As social identity plays an important role in high identifiers’ self-concept and self-esteem (Hutchison & Abrams, 2003), they are more willing to expend efforts on prosocial behavior than low identifiers.

Roles of Norm Violation and Misbehavior Severity

While prior work has distinguished tourist misbehavior by the level of annoyance (Loi & Pearce, 2015) and categorized tour member misbehavior according to certain criteria (Tsaur et al., 2019), our research goes one step further. It examines individuals’ evaluations of and responses to tourist misbehavior differing in severity. Studies 1 and 2 reveal that individuals’ evaluative pattern of ingroup transgressors does not depend on misbehavior severity, suggesting that the simultaneous impact of ingroup bias and the black sheep effect on individuals’ responses to compatriot tourist misbehavior was stable across severity. While the experiments allowed for controlled manipulations and direct hypothesis testing, misbehavior settings in the tourism context are complex and multifaceted in the field. Participants in this research read a fictitious news article about a distant tourist misbehavior committed by their compatriots instead of directly witnessing an event. In reality, people may update their evaluations as situations unfold or as they receive information from differing sources (Sun et al., 2023). In particular, high-identifiers require additional evidence to conclude that their group has engaged in a transgression (Iyer et al., 2012). As such, the current research context might have presented limited information for people to make explicit and conclusive assessments of the ingroup transgressors.

The moderating effect of misbehavior severity on the relationship between ingroup identification and intention to carry out prosocial behavior found in Study 1 dissipates in Study 2, which provides a more stringent test using tourist misbehaviors breaching generic norms. It may suggest a moderating role of the type of norms violated, such that the direct effect of ingroup identification on the intention to carry out prosocial behavior was visible only when the misbehavior violated group-specific norms. This finding implies a suppressed effect of violating generic norms on prosocial behavior. Misbehaviors violating generic norms are universally unacceptable, are difficult to excuse, and significantly reduce ingroup positivity in intergroup comparisons given the reduced fit between misbehavior-implicated social groups and societal standards of conduct (Jetten & Hornsey, 2014; Marques et al., 2001). Harsh punishment and derogation themselves are effective in showing disagreement with the misbehavior, reinforcing group norms, and protecting ingroup positivity (Hutchison et al., 2008), resulting in a lack of prosocial behavior when no extra intervening mechanism (emotions) is activated.

Unlike misbehaviors violating generic norms, misbehaviors violating group-specific norms are relatively easy to excuse, especially in the international travel context. The need to maintain a positive social identity and the effect of ingroup bias make high-identifiers undertake prosocial behavior to manage the ingroup image while giving lenient treatment to ingroup transgressors.

Critical Intervening Role of Emotions

Prior qualitative research in tourism implies that people experience feelings such as embarrassment and anger when witnessing tourist misbehavior (Tsaur et al., 2019; Zhang et al., 2019). However, the specific psychological mechanism through which social identity affects their responses remains unclear. Our research sheds light on emotions as the mediating mechanisms. The activation of shame helps dissipate the effect of ingroup bias as a buffer for transgressors. It motivates prosocial behavior to repair the ingroup image, while the activation of guilt enhances ingroup bias and motivates prosocial behaviors to compensate those harmed. Establishing such a mediating mechanism is important, as it not only helps explain people’s different and even conflicting responses to compatriot tourist misbehavior but also provides interventions for tourism stakeholders to facilitate desirable responses.

In line with the psychology literature (Iyer et al., 2007), individuals can experience emotions because of their shared group membership with transgressors following a compatriot tourist misbehavior. High-identifiers feel stronger emotions than low identifiers as group membership plays a more important part in their self-concept (Hutchison & Abrams, 2003). People may react with guilt over the harm inflicted by the tourist misbehavior or react with shame over the poor reflection on the entire ingroup and subsequently have different responses to the ingroup transgressors and the destination involved.

We show that guilt cannot dissipate the effect of ingroup bias on evaluations of transgressors despite victim-oriented concerns, because recognizing the transgressors as ingroup members is the premise of feeling guilt by association (Doosje et al., 2006). Moreover, guilt did not mediate the relationship between ingroup identification and intention to carry out prosocial behavior when the misbehavior violated generic norms. This finding implies that destinations may benefit from tourists’ prosocial behavior activated by guilt only when tourist misbehavior violates group-specific norms. High-identifiers who feel guilt have stronger intentions to carry out prosocial behavior when misbehavior violates group-specific norms than low identifiers, as guilt prompts attempts at reparation and compensation (Estrada-Hollenbeck & Heatherton, 1998).

By contrast, shame may be viewed as an emotional sign of the activation of the black sheep effect in the appraisal process of compatriot tourist misbehaviors and subsequently prompts people to devaluate transgressors and carry out prosocial behavior as a strategy of image reparation. Shame is an especially salient emotion activated when compatriot tourist misbehavior violates generic norms. Individuals feeling shame believe that compatriot tourist misbehaviors pose a threat to their national character (Lickel et al., 2005), resulting in the activation of the black sheep effect and the urge to correct the negative perceptions. Thus, high-identifiers no longer bolster ingroup transgressors but punish them more harshly and promote prosocial behavior for impression management (Estrada-Hollenbeck & Heatherton, 1998).

Notably, anger did not mediate the relationships between ingroup identification and people’s responses to compatriot tourist misbehavior after guilt and shame have mediated the relationships. Individuals feel a similar degree of anger with transgressors regardless of their identification with the ingroup. A reason may be that anger directed at transgressors is usually characterized by a high level of arousal (Averill, 1983), given the harm inflicted on others.

Managerial Implications

Because tourist misbehavior can negatively affect local communities, other tourists’ experiences, and the collective image of tourist-originating countries, minimizing its occurrence should be a priority for destination marketing organizations (DMOs) and authorities of tourist-originating countries to ensure socially and environmentally sustainable tourism development. One approach is to pivot people’s responses to compatriot tourist misbehavior to ways that facilitate desirable tourist behavior. Our findings show that low-identifiers have a greater tendency to condemn misbehavior and devaluate transgressors. While high identifiers tend to be lenient toward ingroup transgressors, they also tend to carry out prosocial behavior. These findings offer two practical implications. First, authorities of tourist-originating countries could encourage outbound tourists to gently confront their compatriot tourists if they witness misbehavior in progress. Prior research has shown that people are more willing to accept criticism from ingroup than outgroup members (Hornsey, Robson et al., 2008). From the transgressor’s perspective, being told to behave responsibly by people from the same country might be less threatening than receiving the same request from destination residents or other tourists, which might help lessen the misbehavior. Second, to engender prosocial behaviors, tourists can be informed about the damages caused by past tourist misbehaviors and how to make reparation. DMOs may display pictures or videos of impaired properties at tourist attractions with a donation box/QR code to a donation website, raising funds to support local tourism development.

When communicating tourist misbehavior incidents to tourists of the same nationality, DMOs might want to activate different emotions to facilitate desirable tourist behaviors. For a misbehavior that violates local norms, they could activate a feeling of guilt by emphasizing the negative consequences caused by the misbehavior. For a misbehavior that violates generic norms, DMOs could induce shame by indicating that the misbehavior could be transferred, thus boosting prosocial behavior intention. Tourism authorities of tourist-originating countries could also convey to their outbound tourists that they serve as ambassadors of their home country when traveling abroad, so any misbehavior will discredit their homeland. Our research also shows that though high-identifiers cover up compatriot tourist misbehavior, they still work to punish transgressors in general. Thus, setting up a tourist blacklist and punishing transgressors appropriately will receive support from this group.

Finally, pre-trip education to incoming tourists can be provided to ensure they are aware of important local norms and norms foreign tourists often violate. Pre-trip education can occur before a trip or be infused into daily marketing collateral. For example, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism in China (2023) uses public service advertisements to increase public awareness of responsible tourist behavior. The Bali Tourism Board (2023) provides etiquette tips for incoming tourists to show respect for Balinese customs and rituals. Helping local norms become generic and increasing the perceived severity of tourist misbehavior could be ways for tourists and their compatriots to exculpate misbehavior and repeal their “license to sin.” Signage at tourist sites should state not only what actions are forbidden but also the harm inflicted by misbehavior so that tourists can fully understand the severity of their actions. For example, signage inside the MoGao Caves in China, a UNESCO World Heritage site, demonstrates how lightning damages the ancient murals in addition to the directive of “no photograph.”

Limitations and Future Research

Certain research limitations should be considered when interpreting the results. We tested our hypotheses using fictitious news articles providing a single exposure of compatriot tourist misbehavior and measured people’s responses immediately afterward. However, in real life, individuals may adjust their responses as they receive information from different sources (e.g., media reports from the destination country vs. their home country; reports from tourism authorities vs. other tourists). Future research might examine how different information sources frame individuals’ evaluations of compatriot tourist misbehavior and how their perceptions change longitudinally. Furthermore, we restricted our categorization of tourist misbehavior to misbehavior severity and type of norms violated. Future research could adopt other conceptualizations (e.g., victims of misbehavior; Tsaur et al., 2019) to compare the impact across misbehavior types. Also, our findings imply that the type of social norms violated may serve as a boundary condition that affects people’s responses to compatriot tourist misbehavior. Future research could benefit from formally examining the moderating role of the type of norms violated. Finally, while we measured emotions and behavioral intention using self-reports, future research could use psychophysiological methods (e.g., face muscle activity) and actual prosocial behavior to capture emotions accurately.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by The University of Queensland.

ORCID iD

P Monica Chien

Author Biographies

Wanting Sun ( wanting.sun@uq.net.au ) holds a PhD from the the University of Queensland,Australia and a Bachelor of Management in exhibition economy and management from Sun Yat-sen University,China. Her current work focuses on tourist misbehavior,tourist-host relationship,(e)sport fan behavior and (e)sport athlete branding. Her work has been published in the Journal of Destination Marketing and Management and European Sport Management Quarterly.

P. Monica Chien ( m.chien@business.uq.edu.au ) holds a PhD in Marketing and is currently an Associate Professor within the University of Queensland Business School. Her scholarly interest lies in the fields of consumer behavior and marketing communications,and her interdisciplinary research addresses issues relating to traveler information processing and decision making,tourist-resident interaction,tourism-induced disruptions,and sports marketing,with a strong focus on experimental studies. She has published extensively in tourism,marketing,and sport,including Journal of Travel Research,Tourism Management,Annals of Tourism Research,Journal of Sustainable Tourism,Journal of Business Research,Journal of Vacation Marketing,Journal of Destination Marketing and Management,Marketing Intelligence and Planning,Journal of Sport Management,European Sport Management Quarterly,and Current Issues in Tourism . Monica has conducted research and consultancy with industry and government with demonstrated impact on strategy and policy. She has received multiple awards for her research and teaching.

Ravi Pappu ( r.pappu@business.uq.edu.au ) holds a PhD from the University of New England,Australia,an MBA from the University of Waikato,New Zealand and a Bachelor of Technology in mechanical engineering from JNTU,India. Currently,he is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the UQ Business School at the University of Queensland,Australia. His research interests encompass the areas of brand management,corporate sponsorship,international marketing and marketing communications. His work has been published in the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,Journal of International Business Studies,European Journal of Marketing,Journal of Public Policy and Marketing,Journal of Business Research,Journal of Marketing Education,Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,Journal of Product and Brand Management,and International Business Review . Ravi teaches courses in advanced quantitative research methods for honours and PhD students and Market and Consumer Research for postgraduate students at the UQ Business School.

References

Aberson

C. L.

Healy

Romero

(2000). Ingroup bias and self-esteem: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 157–173.

Abrams

Randsley de Moura

Travaglino

G. A.

(2013). A double standard when group members behave badly: Transgression credit to ingroup leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(5), 799–815.

Averill

J. R.

(1983). Studies on anger and aggression: Implications for theories of emotion. The American Psychologist, 38(11), 1145–1160.

Bali Tourism Board. (2023). Travel tips. https://www.balitourismboard.org/bali_travel_tips.html

Bhati

Pearce

(2016). Vandalism and tourism settings: An integrative review. Tourism Management, 57, 91–105.

Bown

N. J.

Abrams

(2003). Despicability in the workplace: Effects of behavioral deviance and unlikeability on the evaluation of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(11), 2413–2426.

Carrillat

F. A.

Harris

E. G.

Lafferty

B. A.

(2010). Fortuitous brand image transfer: Investigating the side effect of concurrent sponsorships. Journal of Advertising, 39(2), 109–123124.

Chekroun

Nugier

(2011). “I'm ashamed because of you, so please, don't do that!”: Reactions to deviance as a protection against a threat to social image. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(4), 479–488.

Cheung

K. S.

L. H.

(2019). Understanding visitor–resident relations in overtourism: Developing resilience for sustainable tourism. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 27(8), 1197–1216.

10.

Chien

P. M.

Kelly

S. J.

Weeks

C. S.

(2016). Sport scandal and sponsorship decisions: Team identification matters. Journal of Sport Management, 30(5), 490–505.

11.

Chien

P. M.

Ritchie

B. W.

(2018). Understanding intergroup conflicts in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 72(C), 177–179.

12.

Dasgupta

DeSteno

Williams

L. A.

Hunsinger

(2009). Fanning the flames of prejudice: The influence of specific incidental emotions on implicit prejudice. Emotion, 9(4), 585–591.

13.

Doosje

B. E. J.

Branscombe

N. R.

Spears

Manstead

A. S. R.

(2006). Antecedents and consequences of group-based guilt: The effects of ingroup identification. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9(3), 325–338.

14.

Estrada-Hollenbeck

Heatherton

T. F.

(1998). Avoiding and alleviating guilt through prosocial behavior. In Bybee

(Ed.), Guilt and children (pp. 215–231). Academic Press.

15.

Fang

(2021, November 23). Are you a bad tourist when you go to Hawaii? 12 ways to avoid being one. Fordor’s Travel. https://www.fodors.com/world/north-america/usa/hawaii/experiences/news/are-you-a-bad-tourist-when-you-go-to-hawaii-12-ways-to-avoid-being-one

16.

Felnhofer

Kothgassner

O. D.

Schmidt

Heinzle

A.-K.

Beutl

Hlavacs

Kryspin-Exner

(2015). Is virtual reality emotionally arousing? Investigating five emotion inducing virtual park scenarios. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 82, 48–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2015.05.004

17.

Frijda

N. H.

(1986). The emotions. Cambridge University Press.

18.

Harmeling

C. M.

Magnusson

Singh

(2015). Beyond anger: A deeper look at consumer animosity. Journal of International Business Studies, 46, 676–693.

19.

Harris

L. C.

Magrizos

(2023). “Souvenir shopping is for schmucks!” Exploring tourists’ deviant behavior through the items they bring back. Journal of Travel Research, 62, 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875211062615

20.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40.

21.

Hewstone

(1990). The “ultimate attribution error”? A review of the literature on intergroup causal attribution. European Journal of Social Psychology, 20(4), 311–335.

22.

Hopkins

Reicher

Harrison

Cassidy

Bull

Levine

(2007). Helping to improve the group stereotype: On the strategic dimension of prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(6), 776–788.

23.

Hornsey

M. J.

(2008). Social identity theory and self-categorization theory: A historical review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 204–222.

24.

Hornsey

M. J.

Jetten

(2003). Not being what you claim to be: Impostors as sources of group threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(5), 639–657.

25.

Hornsey

M. J.

Robson

Smith

Esposo

Sutton

R. M.

(2008). Sugaring the pill: Assessing rhetorical strategies designed to minimize defensive: Reactions to group criticism. Human Communication Research, 34(1), 70–98.

26.

Hutchison

Abrams

(2003). Ingroup identification moderates stereotype change in reaction to ingroup deviance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(4), 497–506.

27.

Hutchison

Abrams

Gutierrez

Viki

G. T.

(2008). Getting rid of the bad ones: The relationship between group identification, deviant derogation, and identity maintenance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 874–881.

28.

Hyde

(2023, April 17). Bali’s crackdown on unruly foreigners won’t hurt tourism, experts say. The New Daily. https://thenewdaily.com.au/life/travel/2023/04/17/bali-tourist-crackdown-tourism/

29.

Iyer

Jetten

Haslam

S. A.

(2012). Sugaring o'er the devil: Moral superiority and group identification help individuals downplay the implications of ingroup rule-breaking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 141–149.

30.

Iyer

Schmader

Lickel

(2007). Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: The role of anger, shame, and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 572–587.

31.

Jetten

Hornsey

M. J.

(2014). Deviance and dissent in groups. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 461–485.

32.

Johns

Schmader

Lickel

(2005). Ashamed to be an American? The role of identification in predicting vicarious shame for anti-Arab prejudice after 9–11. Self and Identity, 4(4), 331–348.

33.

Juvan

Grün

Dolnicar

(2018). Biting off more than they can chew: Food waste at hotel breakfast buffets. Journal of Travel Research, 57(2), 232–242.

34.

Karelaia

Keck

(2013). When deviant leaders are punished more than non-leaders: The role of deviance severity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(5), 783–796.

35.

Karl

Chien

P. M.

Ong

(2021). Impulse buying behaviour in tourism: A new perspective. Annals of Tourism Research, 90, 103136.

36.

Kelly

S. J.

Weeks

C. S.

Chien

P. M.

(2018). There goes my hero again: Sport scandal frequency and social identity driven response. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 26(1), 56–70.

37.

Krishnan

Rivas

Saxon

(2021, July 27). A travel boom is looming. But is the industry ready? McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/travel-logistics-and-infrastructure/our-insights/a-travel-boom-is-looming-but-is-the-industry-ready

38.

Langhout

R. D.

Bergman

M. E.

Cortina

L. M.

Fitzgerald

L. F.

Drasgow

Williams

J. H.

(2005). Sexual harassment severity: Assessing situational and personal determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(5), 975–1007.

39.

Lickel

Schmader

Curtis

Scarnier

Ames

D. R.

(2005). Vicarious shame and guilt. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8(2), 145–157.

40.

Lim

W. M.

(2021). Toward an agency and reactance theory of crowding: Insights from COVID-19 and the tourism industry. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 20(6), 1690–1694.

41.

Chen

(2017). The destructive power of money and vanity in deviant tourist behavior. Tourism Management, 61, 152–160.

42.

Loi

K. I.

Pearce

P. L.

(2015). Exploring perceived tensions arising from tourist behaviors in a Chinese context. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 32(1/2), 65–79.

43.

Mackie

D. M.

Maitner

A. T.

Smith

E. R.

(2016). Intergroup emotions theory. In Nelson

T. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 149–174). Psychology Press.

44.

Mael

Ashforth

B. E.

(1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123.

45.

Marques

J. M.

Abrams

Serĵdio

R. G.

(2001). Being better by being right: Subjective group dynamics and derogation of in-group deviants when generic norms are undermined. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(3), 436–447.

46.

Ministry of Culture and Tourism in China. (2023). Ministry of Culture and Tourism in China policy. https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2023-03/05/content_5744791.htm

47.

Miron

A. M.

Branscombe

N. R.

Biernat

(2010). Motivated shifting of justice standards. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(6), 768–779.

48.

Moufakkir

(2020). Experience of Arab/Muslim women visiting relatives in the west and the management of stigma by association. Tourism Management, 78: 104073.

49.

Mukhopadhyay

Johar

G. V.

(2009). Indulgence as self-reward for prior shopping restraint: A justification-based mechanism. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(3), 334–345.

50.

National Travel and Tourism Office. (2018). Outbound market profiles: U.S. residents departing the United States. Author.

51.

S. I.

Lee

J. A.

Soutar

G. N.

(2007). Tourists’ intention to visit a country: The impact of cultural distance. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1497–1506.

52.

Orie

(2023 June 27). Video shows tourist carving his girlfriend’s name into Rome’s Colosseum. CNN Travel. https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/tourist-inscribes-name-colosseum-rome-intl-scli/index.html.

53.

Piff

P. K.

Martinez

A. G.

Keltner

(2012). Me against we: In-group transgression, collective shame, and in-group-directed hostility. Cognition & Emotion, 26(4), 634–649.

54.

Pinto

I. R.

Marques

J. M.

Levine

J. M.

Abrams

(2010). Membership status and subjective group dynamics: Who triggers the black sheep effect? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 107–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018187

55.

Rafaeli

Erez

Ravid

Derfler-Rozin

Treister

D. E.

Scheyer

(2012). When customers exhibit verbal aggression, employees pay cognitive costs. E-Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(5), 931–950.

56.

Reisinger

(2005). Guest editorial: Leisure travel: National trends, cultural differences. Journal of Vacation Marketing, 11(3), 195–196.

57.

Robinson

S. L.

Bennett

R. J.

(1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.

58.

Rummelhagen

Benkenstein

(2017). Whose fault is it? An empirical study on the impact of responsibility attribution for customer misbehavior. European Journal of Marketing, 51(11/12), 1856–1875.

59.

Ruth

J. A.

Simonin

B. L.

(2006). The power of numbers: Investigating the impact of event roster size in consumer response to sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 35(4), 7–20.

60.

Schaefers

Wittkowski

Benoit

Ferraro

(2016). Contagious effects of customer misbehavior in access-based services. Journal of Service Research, 19(1), 3–21.

61.

Shen

Luo

Zhao

(2017). The sustainable tourism development in Hong Kong: An analysis of Hong Kong residents’ attitude towards Mainland Chinese tourist. Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism, 18(1), 45–68.

62.

Shepherd

Spears

Manstead

A. S.

(2013). This will bring shame on our nation”: The role of anticipated group-based emotions on collective action. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(1), 42–57.

63.

Simmons

C. J.

Becker-Olsen

K. L.

(2006). Achieving marketing objectives through social sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154–169.

64.

Sönmez

Apostolopoulos

C. H.

Yang

Mattila

L. C.

Lucy

(2006). Binge drinking and casual sex on spring break. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 895–917.

65.

Sun

Chien

P. M.

Ritchie

B. W.

Pappu

(2022). When compatriot tourists behave badly: The impact of misbehavior appraisal and outgroup criticism construal. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 23, 100695.

66.

Sun

Chien

P. M.

Weeks

C. S.

(2023). Sport scandal and fan response: The importance of ambi-fans. European Sport Management Quarterly, 23(3), 700–721.

67.

Taheri

Olya

Ali

Gannon

M. J.

(2020). Understanding the influence of airport servicescape on traveler dissatisfaction and misbehavior. Journal of Travel Research, 59(6), 1008–1028.

68.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Nelson Hall.

69.

Terry

D. J.

Hogg

M. A.

McKimmie

B. M.

(2000). Attitude-behaviour relations: The role of in-group norms and mode of behavioural decision-making. The British Journal of Social Psychology 39(3), 337–361.

70.

Tsang

N. K. F.

Prideaux

Lee

(2016). Attribution of inappropriate visitor behavior in a theme park setting – A conceptual model. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 33(8), 1088–1105.

71.

Tsaur

S. H.

Cheng

T. M.

Hong

C. Y.

(2019). Exploring tour member misbehavior in group package tours. Tourism Management, 71, 34–43.

72.

Tung

V. W. S.

(2019). Helping a lost tourist: The effects of metastereotypes on resident prosocial behaviors. Journal of Travel Research, 58(5), 837–848.

73.

Tung

V. W. S.

King

B. E. M.

Tse

(2020). The tourist stereotype model: Positive and negative dimensions. Journal of Travel Research, 59(1), 37–51.

74.

Uriely

Ram

Malach-Pines

(2011). Psychoanalytic sociology of deviant tourist behavior. Annals of Tourism Research, 38(3), 1051–1069.

75.

Volgger

Huang

S. S.

(2019). Scoping irresponsible behaviour in hospitality and tourism: Widening the perspective of CSR. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 31(6), 2526–2543.

76.

Wan

L. C.

Hui

M. K.

Qiu

(. (2021). Tourist misbehavior: Psychological closeness to fellow consumers and informal social control. Tourism Management, 83, 104258.

77.

Zhang

C. X.

Pearce

Chen

(2019). Not losing our collective face: Social identity and Chinese tourists' reflections on uncivilised behaviour. Tourism Management, 73, 71–82.

Responses to Compatriot Tourist Misbehavior: The Importance of Social Identity,Emotions,and Misbehavior Type

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

Social Identity and Biased Evaluation

Misbehavior Severity

Mediating Role of Emotions

Anger

Guilt

Shame

Research Overview

Study 1

Pretests

Design and Participants

Procedure and Stimuli

Measures

Independent Variable

Mediators

Dependent Variables

Covariates

Manipulation Check

Data Analysis Approach

Model A: Attitude Toward the Transgressors

Direct Effects

Interaction Effect

Indirect Effects

Model B: Intention to Punish the Transgressors

Direct Effects

Interaction Effect

Indirect Effects

Model C: Intention to Carry Out Prosocial Behavior

Direct Effects

Interaction Effect

Indirect Effects

Discussion

Study 2

Pretesting

Design and Participants

Manipulation Check

Model A: Attitude Toward the Transgressors

Direct Effects

Interaction Effect

Indirect Effects

Model B: Intention to Punish the Transgressors

Direct Effects

Interaction Effect

Indirect Effects

Model C: Intention to Carry Out Prosocial Behavior

Direct Effects

Interaction Effect

Indirect Effects

Discussion

General Discussion

Ingroup Identification Matters

Roles of Norm Violation and Misbehavior Severity

Critical Intervening Role of Emotions

Managerial Implications

Limitations and Future Research

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

ORCID iD

Author Biographies

References