Comparative study shows both AI and influencer content positively shape tourist visitation intentions, highlighting the importance of anthropomorphic cues.
Technology-driven content is increasingly reshaping how tourists perceive and evaluate destinations, yet the underlying content evaluative processes remain insufficiently investigated. This study, therefore, integrates the Stimulus–Organism–Response (S–O–R) framework with Anthropomorphism Theory to examine how destination anthropomorphic content (DAC) relates to destination image (DI) and destination visitation intention (DVI) in digitally mediated environments. Using a cross-sectional survey design and multi-group Structural Equation Modeling, the study compares relationships across two information sources: AI- and social media influencer-generated content. The results show that DAC is positively associated with both DI and DVI across groups. Permutation-based multi-group analysis indicates that the differences in structural paths between AI and influencer groups are not statistically significant. This finding provides the basis for interpreting group comparisons, suggesting that the observed relationships do not differ meaningfully across content sources. While bootstrapping and effect size (f2) results indicate relatively stronger coefficients in the influencer group, these results are interpreted as descriptive tendencies rather than statistically confirmed differences. These findings suggest that tourists may respond positively to both human and technologically mediated agents’ content when human-like social cues are perceived. This study contributes to the growing discourse on AI and digital content in tourism by unveiling the critical concern of whether the content source matters in anthropomorphic perception. The study further extends the application of S–O–R in AI-mediated marketing contexts. The findings offer practical insights for destination marketers seeking to leverage both AI and influencer-based strategies in shaping tourist perceptions and intentions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nyagudi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: