Online experiment shows that enhancing response strategies boost booking intentions in tourists, suggesting effective crisis communication is essential.
Purpose Guided by situational crisis communication theory (SCCT), this study explores the effectiveness of destination management organizations’ (DMOs) secondary responses strategies on tourists’ eWOM and booking intentions during low-responsibility crises. It also examines the mediating role of perceived destination reputation in this relationship, while analysing how sensation seeking moderates the relationship between response strategies and tourists’ behavioural intentions. Design/methodology/approach A one-factor two-level online experiment was conducted with 1,000 American residents. The data were analysed using independent sample t-tests, PROCESS macro, and bootstrap method to test the hypothesized relationships in our model. Findings Although both enhancing and bolstering response strategies induced similar levels of eWOM, enhancing response strategies are more effective in eliciting higher booking intentions. The results also revealed that perceived destination reputation mediates the relationship between secondary response strategies and tourists’ behavioural intentions and that this mediation is moderated by sensation seeking. Practical implications This study guides DMOs in using effective crisis responses, managing reputation and tailoring messages to audience profiles to boost tourist behavioural intentions. Originality/value This study advances crisis communication literature by examining the underexplored role of secondary response strategies within SCCT. It integrates the mediation role of perceived destination reputation and the moderating effect of sensation seeking to explain how tourists’ behavioural intentions are shaped during prolonged low-responsibility crises. It is among the first to explore these dynamics in the context of crisis communication on social media, offering guidance to help DMOs navigate crises.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Casal-Ribeiro et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: