Next Article in Journal
Exploring the Global Scientific Literature on Food Waste and Loss
Next Article in Special Issue
Carbon Footprint Analysis of Tourism Life Cycle: The Case of Guilin from 2011 to 2022
Previous Article in Journal
Methodology for Identification of the Key Levee Parameters for Limit-State Analyses Based on Sequential Bifurcation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Investigating Ecotourism Opportunities Measurements in a Complex Adaptive System: A Systematic Literature Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/su15064750
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Does Psychological Contract Violation Change the Original Intention of Eco-Tourists to Participate in Scenic Value Co-Creation?

by
Hailing Liu
1,
Ping Hu
2,
Kewei Shi
3,* and
Yudan Zhang
1
1
School of Business Administration, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, Jinan 250014, China
2
Foreign Language for Tourism Department, Shandong College of Tourism & Hospitality, Jinan 250200, China
3
School of Business Administration, South Western University of Finance and Economics, Chengdu 610072, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(6), 4750; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064750
Submission received: 28 December 2022 / Revised: 16 February 2023 / Accepted: 3 March 2023 / Published: 7 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Challenges and Opportunities)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Eco-tourists are the practitioners of promoting the harmonious development of humans and nature, and have a very important significance for the scenic spots and sustainable development of scenic areas. However, external factors often interfere with the eco-tourists’ original intention, which not only affect the tourist experience, but also bring a negative influence to the scenic spots, and even the destinations where they are located. Identifying the triggering factors and processes that influence eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation will lay a solid foundation for the effective governance of scenic areas. This paper systematically explores whether, how and when psychological contract violations significantly affect the eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation from the perspective of psychological contract violations. The data are collected from 556 eco-tourists’ questionnaires from the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Zone of Dongying City, Shandong Province, China. Through a hierarchical regression analysis and further validated by the Bootstrap method, the study finds the following: First, eco-tourists’ psychological contract violation has a significant negative effect on their participation in value co-creation. Second, moral disengagement plays a mediating role in the relationship between psychological contract violation and value co-creation behavior. Third, moral disengagement acts on value co-creation. The process of moral disengagement on value co-creation behavior is influenced by the level of expertise. The negative effect of moral disengagement on value co-creation decreases as the level of expertise increases. The findings of this paper not only expand the antecedents of tourists’ participation and the path of psychological contract violation in value co-creation, but also have important practical implications for promoting eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation as well as reducing, preventing and identifying psychological contract violation in ecotourism scenic spots.

1. Introduction

Ceballos-Laskurain (Special Advisor to the International Union for Conservation of Nature) could probably not have imagined that his idea of ecotourism would grow so rapidly in just a few decades, becoming the fastest growing segment of the tourism product. As the concept of ecology continues to grow in popularity, there is a growing number of eco-tourists who have the dual responsibility of protecting the natural environment and the livelihoods of local people (the 1993 International Ecotourism Society definition of “ecotourism”). Ecotourism is an attitude. There are great differences between eco-tourists and other tourists in the morals and ways of approaching the natural world [1]. This is further reflected in the focus of their travel needs and experiences, such that eco-tourists prefer the outdoors (parks, reserves, wildernesses and the countryside), whereas the general public prefers cities and resorts [1]. Eco-tourists’ preference for nature and higher ethical requirements [2] make their participation in scenic value co-creation a stronger source driver.
Ecotourism, based on Fennell, D. A., encompasses four core criteria: nature-based, sustainability, learning and ethical requirements (Figure 1) [2]. Accordingly, ecotourists show a fundamental difference from the average tourist [3,4]: eco-tourists are primarily motivated to travel due to interest in the natural history of the destination. Specifically, eco-tourists consider those motives more attractive than “feeling at home away from home” and “evoking memories”, such as “unspoiled natural areas”, “bird watching, other wildlife”, “scenic photography”, “camping”, “outdoor activities”, “folk festivals”, “other cultural events”, etc. [5]. Second, eco-tourists participate in more physical activities, stay longer and require fewer services (strict ecotourists), with a higher level of environmental awareness [6]. Thirdly, eco-tourists are discerning and can be insightful and active on environmental issues [7]. Finally, eco-tourists can be described as willing to learn about nature, visit unexplored areas and spend at least 33% of their time on travel for these two purposes [8]. Thus it can be said that eco-tourists enter the landscape with the initial intention of participating in value co-creation. However this initial motivation of eco-tourists has not received sufficient attention from academia and industry. Scholars have explored the motivation of eco-tourists to visit ecotourism destinations and environmentally responsible behaviors during travel from a psychological perspective [9,10]; the relationship between psychological factors and ecotourism satisfaction [11]; the symbiosis issue between tourists and parks and tourists’ willingness to engage in symbiosis issues [12]; eco-tourists’ eco-hypocrisy and inauthenticity issues [13]; and eco-tourists’ travel decisions, risk perceptions under COVID-19 and how these influence tourists’ behavior [14]. However, these studies ignore the eco-tourists’ own initiatives, which can largely influence the travel behavior of eco-tourists, such as switching from being soft to hard eco-tourists (from a lower level to a higher level of environmental awareness) during tourism activities [11], and also bringing unexpected value to the scenic area, which is the eco-tourist and scenic value co-creation. To date, little research has been conducted to analyze the impact of the eco-tourist–site relationship on tourist participation in value co-creation.
To address the limitations and shortcomings of the previous studies, this paper attempts to fill in the gaps by analyzing the logical relationship between psychological contract violations and eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation in scenic areas. The psychological contract, which originates from the organization’s behavior, is an unwritten, implicit contract and mutual expectation between an organization and its employees [15,16]. In contrast to a formal economic contract, it embodies an intangible bond between the two parties. Based on social exchange theory, psychological contracts can be used in reciprocal situations other than employment relationships according to the core principles of this theory. For example, Roehing [17] argues that the psychological contract can be used to describe relationships between landlords and tenants, consultants and clients, even between teachers and students, and couples. All these relationships except for the couple can be classified as marketing relationships, and Luo [18] uses scale development to verify that the same psychological contract exists between companies and customers in marketing situations. The study of psychological contracts in marketing focuses on customers’ perceptions and beliefs about their reciprocal obligations with the company [19,20,21,22]. Therefore the concept of a psychological contract is of great significance to the field of service marketing. The psychological contract, consisting of the customer’s unexpressed wishes, is also an important part of the contractual relationship between the service company and the customer. When a company’s service does not meet its promises or customer expectations, a psychological contract violation (a psychological contract violation is a difference in perception between subjects that leads to a strong emotional response from one party, which affects their beliefs about the reciprocal relationship [23]) occurs, leading to customer dissatisfaction, complaints and even interruptions in the transaction [24]. Most of the studies on “psychological contract violation” in the tourism marketing context are based on the perspective of customer (tourist) management, e.g., Liang et al. [24] verify the negative impact of psychological contract violation on hotel customer loyalty; Xu et al. [25] find that psychological contract violation is a contributing factor to customer relationship crises through a study of theme park visitors; Chen et al. [26] find that psychological contract violation is a mediating variable in the tourist destination selection mechanism; Chen et al. [27] suggest that in Cantonese morning tea (F&B) service in China, customer psychological contract violation plays a moderating role between perceived fairness and behavioral intention. All of these studies validate the relationship between psychological contract violation and customer (tourist) consumption behavior. However the idea that the service process requires cooperation between producers and consumers has been overlooked. Ecotourism is a typical example of this idea. Therefore, the following questions are raised:
Does psychological contract violation affect eco-tourists who enter the site with the initial intention of value co-creation?
How and when is psychological contract violation associated with eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation?
The purpose of this study is to identify the triggering factors and processes that influence eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation, which will lay a solid foundation for the effective governance of scenic areas. This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the related literatures on psychological contract violation, eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation, moral disengagement and expertise. Section 3 describes data collection, variable measurement and methods. The results of statistical analysis are presented in Section 4. This is followed by Section 5 with discussion and suggestions. Finally, conclusions are shown in Section 6.

2. Theoretical Overview and Research Hypotheses

2.1. Theoretical Background

First, in order to open up the “inner black box” of psychological contract violation in eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation, this paper proposes to introduce the mediating role of moral disengagement. Second, in order to open up the boundary conditions of the path where psychological contract violations act on eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation behaviors in scenic areas, this paper proposes to introduce the moderating role of Tourist’s Expertise (TEE).
Moral disengagement is a set of interrelated cognitive strategies or mechanisms that individuals have in place to separate their behavior from their internal values and avoid self-sanctioning their behavior for violating value standards [28]. This moral self-regulation mechanism can be a good explanation for the emergence of eco-tourists’ deviant value co-creation behaviors. In addition, according to the research, moral disengagement is not an endogenous and stable trait of individuals, but rather the result of a combination of individual and external factors [29]. Ecotourism is discussed in the context of moral imperatives, a necessary element of ecotourism theory and practice [1]. Theoretically, a violation of the psychological contract may lead eco-tourists to justify their deviations from the value co-creation of the site by justifying “their behavior”. Theoretically, psychological contract violations may lead eco-tourists to justify their deviations from the value co-creation of the site in order to obtain psychological compensation. Therefore it is further hypothesized that psychological contract violation may affect eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation by increasing their level of moral disengagement. Therefore, in exploring the effect of psychological contract violation on eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation, this paper proposes to introduce the mediating role of moral disengagement to open up the inner path of this psychological contract violation on eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation.
Expertise is defined as the consumer’s ability to perform product-related tasks successfully [30]. According to previous studies, expertise has a significant impact on pre-trip decisions [31,32,33], perceived service quality [34] and behavior [35] during the trip, but there is little in the literature on whether expertise can influence the joint actions of tourists and attractions, which greatly limits the overall understanding of what role expertise plays in the tourist’s travel process. Expertise can not only help consumers to recall important information already stored, but can also be used to analyze incoming information from the on-site environment [36], which is actually a form of secondary learning. “Learning” is a key attitude in ecotourism, and also an ethical activity [37]. Socrates’ lifelong quest was to perfect his own soul through learning. Learning at natural history sites is the foundation of the overall ecotourism experience, which includes not only the information and knowledge provided by the service provider, but also the active learning of the knowledge by the eco-tourist [1]. It is known from the literature that customers with a high level of expertise have a stronger cognitive demand and a greater willingness to obtain information from the outside world [38], and thus a greater willingness to cooperate. Therefore, this study will fill the gap in the literature by introducing the moderating role of expertise in the relationship between moral disengagement and eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation, in order to increase the understanding of the literature on the influence of expertise on scenic value co-creation.

2.2. Hypothesis Development

2.2.1. Psychological Contract Violation and Tourist Value Co-Creation

The idea of value co-creation can be traced back to the 19th century, when von Storch [39] pointed out that the service process required the cooperation of producers and consumers. Fuchs further stated that consumers are also a factor of production, and that consumers, as cooperative factors in the production process, have a significant impact on the productivity of the service industry [40]. With the industry’s development and in-depth research, there are two representative branches of value co-creation theories that have emerged gradually. One is Prahalad and Ramaswamy’s value co-creation theory based on consumer experience. It believes that the co-creation of value is related to experience and can occur at any stage of value formation, and it leads to a change in business philosophy and the business model [41]. The other is Vargo and Lusch’s value co-creation theory based on the service-dominant logic. It argues that value co-creation arises in the process of use and consumption by consumers, and consists of a network of producers, consumers and collaborators [42]. The service-dominant logic emerges when it is difficult to explain the emerging service economy phenomenon by commodity-dominant logic. Unlike commodity-dominant logic, service-dominant logic considers operant resources, such as knowledge and skills, to be more important as benefits to producers [43]. Experience and perception play a key role in determining the existence of service value [44]. Since tourism services are produced and used simultaneously, the process of tourism is experiential, and the process of tourism services is interactive, and complete with peers, the study in this paper is based on the value co-creation theory of service-dominant logic. Based on the value co-creation theory of service-dominant logic, tourists in this paper are regarded as the active input in the process of value co-creation and the core content of service value co-creation in the scenic area.
The concept of psychological contract violation emerged early, primarily in the context of individual–organizational relationships. The relationship between the individual psychological contract and the organization has been well documented in the study of organizational behavior. Employees who perceive that the organization is not fully fulfilling its psychological contractual responsibilities will generate disappointment, anger, unfairness, etc. [45]. This will affect the relationship between employees and the organization, such as a high turnover rate [46,47], low loyalty [48,49,50], low satisfaction [51,52] and low job performance [53]. The psychological contract theory is revolutionary in the field of marketing, because a good relationship with customers is considered an inexhaustible motivation for sustainable business development. By developing a scale, Luo [18] verifies the applicability of the psychological contract in marketing. Pavlou et al. [19] verify that psychological contract violation in online marketing situations is positively related to customer perceived risk and negatively related to customer trust and purchase propensity. Yang et al. [54] place the EVLN model of employee behavior in a marketing context, and show that transactional psychological contract violation in service firms leads to an increase in customer proactive withdrawal and complaint behavior and a decrease in customer loyalty and silent behavior; relational psychological contract violation in service firms leads to a decrease in customer loyalty and an increase in complaint behavior. In the modern service industry, the relationship between customers and service companies often implies an unwritten contract. When service companies fail to meet their implicit promises or customers’ expectations, customers will perceive psychological contract violation, resulting in a series of reactions, such as complaints, grievances and even an interruption of the transaction. This phenomenon occurs from time to time, so many scholars have studied the psychological contract as an antecedent variable. For example, Xu et al. [55] verify the positive relationship between customer psychological contracts and customer loyalty in the service industry. Ma et al. [56] empirically analyze the intrinsic relationship between psychological contracts and customer willingness to maintain, and find that a psychological contract has a significant effect on customer satisfaction and switching cost. Llewellyn [57], on the other hand, examines how service delivery is supported by the psychological contract between internal customers and suppliers from an internal service perspective. There are two main academic views on the dimensions of the psychological contract: two-dimensional and three-dimensional. Among them, two dimensions dominates, and its proposer MacNeil believes that psychological contracts are divided into transactional and relational. The transactional type focuses on the specific economic and material relationship between two parties and is characterized as tangible and relatively stable; the relational type focuses on the socio-emotional aspects and is characterized as intangible and dynamic [58]. Robinson and Morrison and Luo validated these two dimensions through empirical studies [18,59]. In the tourism context, Liang et al. [24] conclude that two dimensions (transactional contract and relational contract) of psychological contract violation are significantly and negatively related to both dimensions of hotel customer loyalty (behavioral loyalty and attitudinal loyalty), and the higher the degree of customer psychological contract violation, the lower the customer loyalty. In order to better explore the impact of psychological contract violation on value co-creation, this paper also measures the psychological contract violation of eco-tourists in two dimensions: transactional and relational, in order to further analyze the comparative paths of the two different dimensions.
Although few studies have analyzed the relationship between psychological contract violation and value co-creation, the psychological component of the value co-creation problem has been noticed. Rodie and Kleine [60] categorize value co-creation practices as mental, physical and emotional participation. Several scholars have emphasized that value co-creation includes not only the physical dimension but also the mental dimension [61,62]. In the tourism context, Prebensen et al. [63] propose that mental participation in co-creation was an antecedent variable of value perception. They verify that consumers’ psychological participation is more important than physical participation in consumers’ value perception. Xie et al. [64], on the other hand, validate the co-creation value–tourist satisfaction model in the ecotourism context of the Australian whale watching experience, revealing the importance of tourists’ mental co-creation in creating value and satisfaction for the customer.
Based on the above research, this paper proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Psychological contract violation negatively affects eco-tourists’ behavior of participating in scenic value co-creation, i.e., the higher the degree of perceived psychological contract violation by eco-tourists, the less they participate in scenic value co-creation. Given the two dimensions of psychological contract violation above, this study further tests the following hypotheses separately. Psychological contract violation has a significant positive effect on moral disengagement (H1a); Transactional psychological contract violation has a significant positive effect on moral disengagement (H1b).

2.2.2. The Mediating Role of Moral Disengagement

The relationship between psychological contract violation–moral disengagement–individual performance has been established in previous studies in organizational behavior, that when employees are treated unjustly and unfairly, they will be in a state of psychological contract violation, which motivates them to engage in negative behaviors to compensate for their psychological loss [65]. Fida et al. [66] show that negative emotions positively affect moral disengagement from their empirical research. Thus the effect of psychological contract violation on moral disengagement is clear. Moreover, in the absence of a psychological contract, employees have a strong incentive to gain financial benefits to compensate for the psychological “loss” in order to maintain their internal balance, which ultimately increases the level of moral disengagement [67]. Therefore this paper proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Psychological contract violation has a significant positive effect on moral disengagement. Based on the two dimensions of psychological contract violation above, this study intends to further test the impact of each of the two dimensions on moral disengagement, and therefore proposes the following hypotheses: Transactional psychological contract violation has a significant positive effect on moral disengagement (H2a); Relational psychological contract violation has a significant positive effect on moral disengagement (H2b).
According to moral disengagement theory, even though people have developed their personalities, moral principles and self-evaluation systems, they will still commit immoral acts and make themselves feel good through self-disengagement [68]. This is mainly because people are neither unidirectionally driven by internal forces nor unidirectionally controlled by environmental conditions, but are mutually influenced and determined by internal factors, behavior and the external environment [69]. When external factors are stimulated and psychological contract violations occur, the individual’s moral disengagement level changes accordingly. When the stimulus of external factors comes, the level of moral disengagement will change and influence the individual’s behavior accordingly. This study is based on service-dominant logic, where tourists are seen as active contributors to the value co-creation process in scenic areas. Furthermore, when tourists develop moral disengagement due to external factors, it will directly affect their travel behavior. Accordingly, the third hypothesis of this paper is proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Moral disengagement has a significant positive effect on value co-creation.
In the tourism industry, scholars have focused more on tourism moral disengagement which is highly compatible with the essence of ecotourism. David et al. [70] make a comprehensive statement on animal suffering, arguing that tourists in tourism ignore issues regarding animal ethics and that a roadmap to eliminate animal suffering in tourism should be developed as a priority. Tickle et al. [71] further verify that the seven sins or risk zones in a hunting tourism situation lead to moral disengagement from tourists when they face situational stress, which in turn leads to the elimination of ecological guilt by hunting. The social contagion effect significantly increases when tourists see the deviant tourism behaviors of their peers. Su et al. [72] verify the mediating role of moral disengagement through a questionnaire survey and four scenario experiments. Based on the analysis above, the hypotheses are proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Moral disengagement plays a mediating role between psychological contract violation and eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation. In specific, moral disengagement plays a mediating role for the following relationship including transactional psychological contract violation and eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation (H4a) and relational psychological contract violation and eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation (H4b).

2.2.3. Moderating Role of Expertise

When discussing the relationship between psychological contract violations and behavioral responses at the individual level, the moderating role of individual characteristics should not be overlooked. In recent years, expertise as an individual-specific variable has received increasing attention and research from tourism scholars [73,74,75], especially in the context of individual tourist behavior. Previous studies have demonstrated the significant moderating role of expertise in the relationship between independent variables and dependent variables such as traveler decision making [76] and traveler perception [32]. However, few studies have examined the relationship between expertise and value co-creation, thus limiting the contextual impact of the independent variables on value co-creation and neglecting the important question of whether expertise indirectly influences value co-creation behavior. This paper hypothesizes that expertise weakens the negative impact of eco-tourists’ moral disengagement on participation in value co-creation. The reasons are the following:
In ecotourism, the value of education is an important part of the tourist’s visit. This includes not only the transfer of knowledge from the guide to the eco-tourist, but also the process of learning about the destination that is motivated by the acquisition of destination-related information, such as destination books, brochures, reports, accommodations and personal observations [1]. Tourist expertise is an important variable that reflects tourist information processing ability [34]. Gursoy et al. [73] find that tourists with a high level of expertise are capable of processing information about the destination at a fine level, whereas those with a low level of expertise may only be familiar with and aware of the relevant attributes of the destination, but not be further elevated and abstracted to the emotional level, thus affecting the tourist’s initiative during the visit. According to the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), individuals with a high level of expertise tend to form their attitudes toward things through “external information search” and “fine processing”. These attitudes, based on rational, logical and refined processing, are more durable and less likely to change [77,78]. This group of eco-tourists tends to have a strong attitude and thus lower levels of moral disengagement. Although there are few results on the impact of expertise on tourist willingness to cooperate (value co-creation), Cong [79] has shown that destination knowledge perceptions are positively related to tourist satisfaction, willingness to recommend by word of mouth and willingness to revisit. This suggests that tourists’ perception of knowledge contributes to the willingness to cooperate. Furthermore Le’s study also indicates that destination knowledge perception positively moderates the effect of tourist satisfaction on tourists’ willingness to revisit and word-of-mouth recommendation. Based on the above research, this paper proposes the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Expertise moderates a negative influence of moral disengagement on ecotourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation.
Based on the hypotheses, this paper draws a conclusion on the theoretical framework as the following diagram (Figure 2).

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection

This study obtained data by distributing questionnaires in the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Area (Dongying City, Shandong Province, China). There are three reasons for this case study. First, it is the typicality of ecological resources, because the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Zone is a national 5A scenic spot located at the mouth of the Yellow River and has unique ecotourism resources (river and sea confluence, wetland ecology, etc., see Figure 3) in the Yellow River Delta. Second, it is the feasibility of data acquisition. The team has a good cooperation basis with the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Zone. With the assistance of the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Zone Ltd. in the distribution of the questionnaire, it guarantees the effective acquisition of data. Third, it is to enhance the general applicability. There are still few studies on eco-tourists in the Yellow River Estuary, however this study can be a meaningful exploration for enhancing the generalizability of eco-tourist studies. Based on the available statistics, the peak seasons from April to June 2022 and January 2023 were selected for distribution (T-test showed no significant difference between the questionnaires returned in the two time periods). In order to ensure the reliability and validity of the study, the questionnaire used the expert discriminant method by Diamantis [80] in a study of British eco-tourists and added two questions, “Occasionally participate in nature tourism with educational/conservation destinations during your vacation” and “Frequently participate in nature tourism with educational/conservation destinations during your vacation” to identify the genuine eco-tourists and eliminate tourists who visit ecotourism areas occasionally.

3.2. Variable Measurement

Psychological contract violation: considering the tourism context of psychological contract violation, this study referred to the scale items developed by Luo [18], Rousseau [81] and Dang et al. [82]. There are 10 items of this variable measurement, such as “The scenic spot is doing well in health”, “The scenic spot cares about the inner feelings and feedback of tourists” and “The staff of the scenic spot are sincerely, not perfunctorily” (1 = strongly disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 5 = somewhat agree and 7 = strongly agree). The transactional psychological contract violation is the first five items with an alpha coefficient of 0.900, and the relational psychological contract violation is the last five items with an alpha coefficient of 0.944.
Moral disengagement: a well-established scale was used that was developed by Bandura [83] and Li et al. [84] with the wording in the context of tourism. There were 15 questions measuring this variable, such as “It is good to kill the animals a little bit in the scenic area to promote the survival of the fittest”, “When see people picking fruits, I am at a disadvantage if I do not go, but the law does not condemn the mass” and “There are not enough trash cans in the scenic area, sometimes I have to throw them on the ground” (1 = very much agree, 3 = somewhat agree, 5 = somewhat disagree and 7 = strongly disagree). The alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.979.
Expertise: a well-established scale was used that was developed by Kerstetter et al. [36]. The scale had 3 items, including “before choosing the Yellow River Estuary ecotourism area, you are very familiar with it”, “You have been to similar ecotourism areas many times before” and “You have a lot of knowledge about ecotourism in the Yellow River Estuary” (1 = very unqualified, 3 = somewhat unqualified, 5 = somewhat qualified and 7 = very qualified). The alpha coefficient of this scale was 0.838 after analysis.
Value co-creation: the scale was based on Dabholkar’s well-established scale [85] on value co-creation in marketing, and combined with the scale developed by Li [86] in the study of value co-creation in tourism contexts. There are 4 items of this variable measurement, such as “I am willing to take the initiative to put forward my own opinions and suggestions on the problems arising during the tour”, “I can take the initiative to reflect my travel needs to the scenic area staff” and “I will reflect my needs if asked by the scenic area staff” (1 = very much disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 5 = somewhat agree and 7 = very much agree). The alpha coefficient of the scale was analyzed to be 0.954.
The alpha coefficient for the scale as a whole was 0.942.

3.3. Methods

The issue of common method bias exists for homogenous questionnaire data. In this paper, Harman’s single-factor test is used for the potential impact of homologous method bias issues on the study findings by packaging and conducting unrotated factor analysis for all questions on transactional psychological contract violation, relational psychological contract violation, moral disengagement, expertise and value co-creation.
This study is then evaluated by validated factor analysis (AMOS 24) to test the discrimination between variables. There is a comparison among the models including a five-factor model, a four-factor model, a three-factor model, a two-factor model and a one-factor model, respectively.
Main effects test: Firstly, value co-creation is set as the dependent variable. Secondly, control variables are added and finally, transactional psychological contract violation and relational psychological contract violation are put into the regression equation as independent variables in turn.
Mediation effect test: Firstly, it tests the main effect of transactional psychological contract violation and relational psychological contract violation on value co-creation, respectively. Secondly, it tests the direct effect of transactional psychological contract violation and relational psychological contract violation on moral disengagement, respectively. Finally, it tests the transactional psychological contract violation, relational psychological contract violation and moral disengagement simultaneously returning to the dependent variable value co-creation. BARON points out that when testing the mediating effect with the stratified regression method, if the sample does not conform to the normal distribution, it is inadequate for its confidence interval as the basis for determining whether the mediating effect is significant [87]. In order to test the mediating effect of this paper’s model more rigorously, this study adopts Preacher and Hayes’ Bootstrap method [88] and sets the Bootstrap sample size as 5000 with Model 4 for further validation.
Moderating effect: Regarding the test of the moderating effect of expertise on moral disengagement and value co-creation, the idea is to have the interaction terms of moral disengagement and expertise and then gradually introduce the control variable, independent variable (moral disengagement), moderating variable (expertise) and interaction term. In addition, the moderating effect of expertise was further examined by using Model 14 in the Bootstrap.

4. Results

A total of 800 questionnaires were distributed, and 691 were returned. After removing 61 invalid questionnaires with the same scores for each question and obvious scoring patterns, 630 questionnaires were left, resulting in a valid return rate of 78.7%. After eliminating 74 questionnaires from tourists who occasionally visited the ecotourism area, 556 questionnaires were available for analysis. The sample characteristics are shown in Table 1 (Table 1).

4.1. Common Method Bias Test, Reliability and Validity

The results of Harman’s single-factor test showed that the first principal component accounted for 37.2%, which was below 40% discriminant criterion and not exceeding half of the total variance explained (77.1%). Therefore there were no serious problems in terms of common method bias.
The reliability of the questionnaire is further tested by the Cronbach Alpha coefficient. As seen in Table 2, the Cronbach Alpha coefficient in each scale is greater than 0.84, indicating that the questionnaire had good internal consistency, and the reliability met the needs of the analysis.
According to the results of Table 3, it is clear that the five-factor model has a better fit index ( χ 2 / d f = 3.326 < 5, RESEA0.075 < 0.08, CFI0.930 > 0.9, IFI0.930 > 0.9) compared to the other models, and therefore the discriminant validity among the variables is better.

4.2. Descriptive Statistical Analysis

It is shown in Table 4 the means, standard deviations and correlation coefficients of the variables in this study. According to the results, transactional psychological contract violation and value co-creation (r = 0.111, p < 0.01) and relational psychological contract violation (r = 0.096, p < 0.01) both have significant negative correlations with value co-creation. Transactional psychological contract violation and moral disengagement (r = 0.301, p < 0.01) and relational psychological contract violation and moral disengagement (r = 0.320, p < 0.01) are significantly correlated positively. Moral disengagement and value co-creation (r = 0.125, p < 0.01) show a significant negative correlation. Thus H1a(b), H2a(b) and H3 are supported tentatively.

4.3. Hypothesis Validation Results

4.3.1. Main Effect Test

It is shown from Model 4 in Table 5 that transactional psychological contract violation has a significant negative effect on value co-creation (β= −0.118, p < 0.01), and hypothesis H1a is supported. Relational psychological contract violation has a significant negative effect on value co-creation (β = −0.102, p < 0.05), and hypothesis H1b is validated. In addition, according to the VIF values of the variables of the model, the maximum value is 3.300 < 10. Therefore it can be concluded that there is no serious multicollinearity in the variables studied in this paper.

4.3.2. Mediation Effect Test

The results are shown in Table 5 after the validation based on the hierarchical regression analysis. From M2 to M6 of Table 5, it is found that transactional psychological contract violation has a significant positive effect on moral disengagement (β = 0.283, p < 0.01). Relational psychological contract violation has a significant positive effect on moral disengagement (β = 0.212, p < 0.01), while moral disengagement has a significant negative effect on value co-creation (β = −0.105, p < 0.01). Furthermore, after moral disengagement and transactional (relational) psychological contract violation regress into the model simultaneously, transactional psychological contract violation (β = −0.122, p < 0.05) and relational psychological contract violation (β = −0.049, p < 0.05) remain significant, indicating that moral disengagement plays an intermediary role for the transactional (relational) psychological contract violation and value co-creation and is partially mediated. Hypotheses 2 to 4 are supported.
Preacher and Hayes’ Bootstrap method: From Table 6, the 95% level asymmetric confidence interval is [−0.191, −0.031] ([−0.174, −0.016]) for the mediating effect of moral disengagement between transactional (relational) psychological contract violation and value co-creation, which does not contain zero. This indicates that the mediating effect is significant, and the indirect effect is negative for the transactional (relational) psychological contract on value co-creation through moral disengagement. Hypothesis 4 of this paper is strongly supported again.

4.3.3. Moderating Effect

From M8 in Table 5, it is shown that moral disengagement has a significant negative effect on value co-creation (β = −0.198, p < 0.01). The interaction between moral disengagement and expertise has a significant positive effect on value co-creation (β = 0.138, p < 0.01), while moderating variable expertise has a positive effect on value co-creation (β = 0.391, p < 0.01). Therefore, the expertise weakens the negative effect of moral disengagement on value co-creation, and thus H5 is supported.
Following the suggestion of Aiken et al. [89], in order to test more intuitively whether the moderating role of expertise for moral disengagement and value co-creation is in line with theoretical expectations, this paper plots Figure 4 based on the final regression results and the suggestion of Cohen et al. [90], using the mean plus or minus one standard deviation as the grouping variable, respectively. As seen in Figure 4, compared to low levels of expertise, moral disengagement has a weaker negative effect on value co-creation behavior at a high expertise level condition.
Bootstrapping test: The results confirmed that there was a significant moderating effect of expertise in the influence of moral disengagement on tourists’ value co-creation behavior (β = 0.138, p < 0.001, 95% CI [0.091, 0.189], not including 0), but the moderating effect of expertise varied at different levels. Specifically, the moderating role of moral disengagement in influencing tourists’ value co-creation behavior increased as expertise increased. The moderating effect was stronger when expertise was at a high level (Mexpertise = 5.319, Effect = −0.154, SE = 0.041, 95% CI [−0.234, −0.073]). The moderating effect decreased slightly when the expertise was at the average level, compared to the high expertise level (Mexpertise = 3.960, Effect = −0.344, SE = 0.045, 95% CI [−0.433, −0.256]). The moderating effect was still significant at the lower levels of expertise, but was at its lowest level (Mexpertise = 2.602, Effect = −0.535, SE = 0.068, 95% CI [−0.669, −0.401]). In conclusion, the moderating effect of expertise was confirmed (Table 7).
At this point, the model hypothesis of this paper has been fully validated (Table 8). When a scenic spot fails to fulfill its promises to customers, or when the management and performance of a scenic spot do not meet the standards expected by tourists, tourists may feel psychological contract violation. This will lead to moral disengagement from the tourists, who will no longer strictly follow ethical standards and find reasons for their unethical behavior. Ultimately this will result in a reduction in the value co-creation between tourists and the scenic area. However the emergence of this phenomenon is regulated by the expertise. When there is psychological contract violation, the tourists will still have moral disengagement with a higher level of expertise. However the influence of moral disengagement on the value co-creation will decrease under the regulation of expertise.

5. Discussion and Suggestions

5.1. Discussion

Based on the framework of psychological contract violation–moral disengagement–value co-creation, this study explored eco-tourists’ initial intention to participate in scenic value co-creation in the state of psychological contract violation and the underlying mechanism of the whole process, using ecotourism as the context and eco-tourists as the subjects. Unlike previous studies [9,10,11,12,13] that have placed eco-tourists in the perspective of willingness and influencing factors to participate in scenic co-creation and environmentally responsible behavior, this study is based on the perspective of subject initiative within the context of psychology and placed within the overall research framework. The data for this study are based on 556 valid questionnaires distributed in the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Area (Dongying City, Shandong Province, China), a typical national park. The findings indicate that eco-tourists enter the scenic area with the initial intention of participating in value co-creation, and a psychological contract violation occurs, whether it is a transactional psychological contract violation or a relational psychological contract violation. The results of the negative effect of psychological contract violation on the subject’s behavior are consistent with the findings of Liang et al. [24], Azeem et al. [52] and Wang et al. [65]. The transactional psychological contract violation (β = −0.118) has a slightly greater impact than the relational psychological contract violation (β = −0.102). The reason for this is mainly that transactional psychological contracts are more tangible, and easy to identify and capture. Second, moral pushback plays a partially mediating role. The finding of the mediating role of moral disengagement between the psychological contract and the subject’s behavior is consistent with the findings of Zhong et al. [91]. This study further found that although moral disengagement partially mediated the relationship between both transactional psychological contract violation (β = −0.122*) and relational psychological contract violation (β = −0.049*) and value co-creation, the mediating effect of moral disengagement was somewhat greater in relational psychological contract violation. This is mainly because relational psychological contract violations are less likely to be detected and thus have more reason to be shirked. Finally, this study explored that the level of expertise of eco-tourists has a moderating effect and that the negative effect of moral disengagement on value co-creation diminishes as the level of expertise increases.

5.2. Contribution to Theory

The contributions of this study are as follows. First, it expands the antecedents of customer participation in value co-creation in the context of tourism and enriches the literature on tourist participation in value co-creation from a psychological perspective. In the literature, previous scholars have discussed tourists’ participation in value co-creation in terms of the behavior [64,92], perceived value [63], influence [93,94] and mechanism [95] etc., but less attention has been paid to the impact of tourists’ psychological state on value co-creation, and little research has been conducted on the important role of psychological contract violation in this context. This paper attempts to fill this gap by using the psychological contract as an entry point for empirical investigation, which has important theoretical implications for further exploration of value co-creation in scenic areas in the future.
Second, by proposing and verifying the mediating role of moral disengagement, this paper opens up the “inner black box” of psychological contract violation in tourists’ participation in value co-creation. Although previous scholars have focused on the role of psychological factors in the value co-creation process [63,64], the dynamic process of how psychological factors affect tourists and their participation in scenic value co-creation has not yet been addressed; the transmission path between tourists’ psychological factors and their participation in scenic value co-creation is unclear. This paper aims to verify the rationality of the path of psychological contract violation—moral disengagement—participation in value co-creation by introducing moral disengagement and then contribute to the theoretical construction of the relationship between tourists’ psychological factors and tourists’ participation in value co-creation in scenic spots.
Third, by introducing and validating the moderating role of expertise, this paper reveals the boundary conditions of psychological contract violation as a path for tourists to participate in value co-creation in the scenic area. No research has yet linked psychological contract violation to visitors’ participation in value co-creation, let alone further analyzed the transmission mechanisms and contextual factors of the relationship, and thus little is known in the literature about which path and contexts psychological contract violation will more significantly influence visitors’ participation in value co-creation. Therefore, this paper includes expertise as a moderating variable, to further clarify the situational boundaries of psychological contract violation on tourists’ participation in value co-creation in scenic areas.

5.3. Management Implications

Here are the main practical implications of this paper: First, psychological contract violation leads to a decrease in eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation in the destination. Therefore, ecotourism destinations should try to avoid such situations, including proactively understanding tourists’ psychological expectations and actively fulfilling their commitments to tourists. If the psychological contract violation occurs, there should be remedies in a timely manner. If there are appropriate service remediation strategies, the impact of psychological contract violation can be reduced [24]. Second, moral disengagement plays an important intermediary role in the relationship between psychological contract violation and value co-creation. Therefore, scenic spots can tend to make some requirements or suggestions for the ethics of eco-tourists, such as setting up warning signs (notice boards) in the scenic spots, printing ethics on the information packets for tourists, conducting ethics indoctrination before entering the scenic spots and producing special videos or slides on ethics [70] to regulate or guide the behavior of tourists, so as to avoid their escape from “responsibility” for the value co-creation of the scenic spots as much as possible. Third, given that expertise can significantly moderate the negative impact of moral disengagement on eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation, scenic areas should strengthen the transfer of knowledge to eco-tourists, including not only the correctness and comprehensiveness of signs in the area and the abundance of information on the area’s website and other promotional media, but also, and more importantly, the effectiveness of tour guides and docents. Kuo [96] writes in a study that information interpretation should be effective in conveying friendliness to visitors, guiding them to their destinations quickly and safely, explaining the natural and cultural history of the area and regulating their behavior. Armstrong et al. [97] find that there is less environmental protection information and less time spent on presentation and interpretation (such as how to minimize visitors’ impact on the site and the value and significance of the site), and there are problems in the content and format of the information. More emphasis should be placed on the effectiveness of interpretation (e.g., clear objectives), which is what really affects visitors’ psychology.
In the case of the Yellow River estuary ecotourism area, further observations and interviews with relevant personnel reveal that the awareness of its management in preventing and identifying tourists’ psychological contract violations is still insufficient. Measures regarding ethical norms are lacking, and the guides’ explanations are not comprehensive and in-depth enough, nor professional enough (Figure 5). The recommendations given in this study are as follows: First, publicity should reflect that it is the duty and responsibility of tourists to protect and respect the original ecological and humanistic environment and way of life; publicity is not static, but can be kept hot by strengthening and reshaping the image according to the events; publicity should not be exaggerated. Second, attention should be paid to the construction of scenic hardware, especially parking and dining areas. The signage set up in the park should be able to allow visitors to capture the message of ethics, not simply take the role of pointing the way or providing ornamental information, and the overall style should be unified. Once again, it is urgent to improve the professionalism of the tour guides. Eco-tourists already have a certain level of expertise, so the professionalism of the guides should be able to reach a higher level than simply explaining what they see. Finally, there are software construction aspects, such as setting up an efficient safety warning mechanism and improving the ability to deal with emergencies.

5.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

The limitations of this paper include the following: First, this paper only explores the impact of psychological contract violation on value co-creation in ecotourism, and future research will be expanded to enrich the impact of other psychological states of tourists on value co-creation that may occur in the whole ecotourism process. Second, the moderating effect of expertise only occurs in the relationship between moral disengagement and value co-creation. The moderating variables of moral disengagement mediation and main effects will be further explored in the future. Third, with all previous research and findings, the conclusions of this paper may still be adversely affected by common methodological biases. Fourth, the data of a single case may lead to a certain deviation, and future studies can be further validated in other scenic areas. Fourth, there is the limitation of using only the eco-tourists from the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Area in Dongying City, Shandong Province, China, as the research subjects. Future research can be extended and verified by selecting different types of ecotourism scenic spots.

6. Conclusions

Ecotourism is a fast-growing trend in the tourism sector that can provide increased economic growth, benefit rural areas and protect the adjacent ecosystems [98]. Eco-tourists visit natural ecosystems under low impact, non-consumptive and locally-oriented activities [99]. They are the practitioners of promoting the harmonious development of humans and nature, and have a very important significance for the scenic spots and the sustainable development of scenic areas [100]. However, external factors often interfere with the eco-tourists’ original intentions, which not only affect the tourist experience, but also bring a negative influence to the scenic spots. In order to explore the antecedents of eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation in the context of ecotourism, a hierarchical regression analysis further validated by the Bootstrap method was applied in this study. Through the analysis of 556 questionnaires on the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Zone of Dongying City, Shandong Province, China, this study finds the following: First, eco-tourists’ psychological contract violation is a variable affecting their participation in value co-creation significantly. It enriches the literature on tourist participation in value co-creation from a psychological perspective. Second, moral disengagement plays a mediating role in the relationship between psychological contract violation and value co-creation behavior. It opens up the “inner black box” of psychological contract violation in eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation. Third, moral disengagement acts on value co-creation. The process of moral disengagement on value co-creation behavior is influenced by the level of expertise. It opens up the boundary conditions of the path where psychological contract violations act on eco-tourists’ participation in value co-creation behaviors in scenic areas. In addition to the above theoretical contributions, the findings of this paper have important management implications for the ecotourism scenic spots, especially on reducing psychological contract violation in ecotourism scenic spots.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.L. and P.H.; methodology, K.S.; software, K.S.; validation, H.L., P.H. and K.S.; investigation, H.L., P.H., K.S. and Y.Z.; resources, H.L., P.H., K.S. and Y.Z.; data curation, Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, H.L. and K.S.; writing—review and editing, Y.Z.; visualization, Y.Z.; supervision, P.H.; project administration, P.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by The Thematic Case Program of China, grant number ZT-211045605.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of SCHOOL OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, SDUFE (protocol code: 20220403 and date of approval: 3 April 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Fennell, D.A. Ecotourism, 4th ed.; Zhang, L.; Ma, X., Translators; The Commercial Press: Beijing, China, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. Fennell, D.A. Ecotourism; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2014; pp. 21–36. [Google Scholar]
  3. Kretchman, J.A.; Eagles, P. An analysis of the motives of ecotourists in comparison to the general Canadian population. Loisir Et Société/Soc. Leis. 1990, 13, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Williacy, S.; Eagles, P.F.J. An Analysis of the Federation of Ontario Naturalists’ Canadian Nature Tours Programme; University of Waterloo: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 1990; Unpublished Monograph. [Google Scholar]
  5. Li, Y. Research on Tourist Behavior and Tourist Management in Ecotourism; Tourism Education Press: Beijing, China, 2006; p. 124. [Google Scholar]
  6. Weaver, D.B. The evolving concept of ecotourism and its potential impacts. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. 2002, 5, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mitchell, G.E. Ecotourism Guiding: How to Start Your Career as an Ecotourism Guide; GE Mitchell: Brighouse, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ballantine, J.L.; Eagles, P.F. Defining Canadian Ecotourists. J. Sustain. Tour. 1994, 2, 210–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kerstetter, D.L.; Hou, J.S.; Lin, C.H. Profiling Taiwanese ecotourists using a behavioral approach. Tour. Manag. 2004, 25, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chiu, Y.T.H.; Lee, W.I.; Chen, T.H. Environmentally responsible behavior in ecotourism: Antecedents and implications. Tour. Manag. 2014, 40, 321–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Castellanos-Verdugo, M.; Vega-Vázquez, M.; Oviedo-García, M.Á.; Orgaz-Agüera, F. The relevance of psychological factors in the ecotourist experience satisfaction through ecotourist site perceived value. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 124, 226–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Shi, F.; Weaver, D.; Zhao, Y.; Huang, M.F.; Tang, C.; Liu, Y. Toward an ecological civilization: Mass comprehensive ecotourism indications among domestic visitors to a Chinese wetland protected area. Tour. Manag. 2019, 70, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mkono, M. Eco-hypocrisy and inauthenticity: Criticisms and confessions of the eco-conscious tourist/traveller. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 84, 102967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ogunfowora, B.T.; Nguyen, V.Q.; Steel, P.; Hwang, C.C. A meta-analytic investigation of the antecedents, theoretical correlates, and consequences of moral disengagement at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2022, 107, 746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Levinson, H.; Molinari, J.; Spohn, A.G. Organizational Diagnosis; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kotter, J.P. The psychological contract: Managing the joining-up process. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1973, 15, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Roehling, M.V. The origins and early development of the psychological contract construct. J. Manag. Hist. 1997, 3, 204–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Luo, H. Psychological Contract and Its Measurement in Marketing Context. Bus. Econ. Adm. 2005, 6, 37–41. [Google Scholar]
  19. Pavlou, P.A.; Gefen, D. Psychological contract violation in online marketplaces: Antecedents, consequences, and moderating role. Inf. Syst. Res. 2005, 16, 372–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Danilwan, Y.; Isnaini, D.B.Y.; Pratama, I. Psychological Contract Violation: A Bridge between Unethical Behavior and Trust. Syst. Rev. Pharm. 2020, 11, 54–60. [Google Scholar]
  21. Deng, X.; Long, X. Consumers’ CSR boycott: The mediating role of psychological contract violation. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 2020, 11, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chopdar, P.K.; Sivakumar, V.J. Understanding psychological contract violation and its consequences on mobile shopping applications use in a developing country context. J. Indian Bus. Res. 2018, 10, 208–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lu, V.N.; Capezio, A.; Restubog, S.L.D.; Garcia, P.R.; Wang, L. In pursuit of service excellence: Investigating the role of psychological contracts and organizational identification of frontline hotel employees. Tour. Manag. 2016, 56, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Liang, W.; Liu, Y. The Impact of Psychological Contract Violation on Hotel Customer Loyalty: Moderating Effect of Service Recovery Strategies. Tour. Trib. 2014, 2, 55–65. [Google Scholar]
  25. Xu, Q.; Wu, K. Service failure, psychological contract violation and formation of customer relationship crisis—An empirical research of the OCT theme park. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 2018, 11, 466–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Chen, M.; Chen, J.; Xue, W. Research on the influence mechanism of eWOM on selection of tourist destinations—The intermediary role of psychological contract. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management, Osaka, Japan, 7–9 April 2020; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 654–667. [Google Scholar]
  27. Chen, H.; Li, X.; Chiu, T.S.; Chen, F. The impact of perceived justice on behavioral intentions of Cantonese Yum Cha consumers: The mediation role of psychological contract violation. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 49, 178–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bandura, A. Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. In Perspectives on Evil and Violence; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2014; pp. 193–209. [Google Scholar]
  29. Claybourn, M. Relationships Between Moral Disengagement, Work Characteristics and Workplace Harassment. J. Bus. Ethics 2010, 100, 283–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Alba, J.W.; Hutchinson, J.W. Dimensions of consumer expertise. J. Consum. Res. 1987, 13, 411–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kim, E.E.K.; Mattila, A.S.; Baloglu, S. Effects of gender and expertise on consumers’ motivation to read online hotel reviews. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2011, 52, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhu, J.; Li, Z.; Yang, S.; Feng, X. The Influence of Internet Negative Reputation on Tourists’ Perception and Tourism Intention. J. Huaqiao Univ. (Philos. Soc. Sci.) 2021, 2, 51–64. [Google Scholar]
  33. Eletxigerra, A.; Barrutia, J.M.; Echebarria, C. Tourist expertise and pre-travel value co-creation: Task-related processes and beyond. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2021, 37, 100772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Cheng, P. Effect of tourists’ pre-visit destination image on their perceived service quality: The moderating effect of tourist’s expertise. Tour. Trib. 2018, 33, 57–66. [Google Scholar]
  35. Yin, C.; Li, W.; Zhu, A.; Sun, Y.; Ling, G.; Kuang, W.; Zhang, Y. Impact of Tourists’ Perception of Environment Education on Pro-environmental Behavior in Tianyan Scenic Spot: Taking Tourist Expertise as Mediator. Areal Res. Dev. 2019, 6, 97–110. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kerstetter, D.; Cho, M.-H. Prior knowledge, credibility and information search. Ann. Tour. Res. 2004, 31, 961–985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Gao, D. On the Relationship between Learning and Morality. J. Shanxi Univ. (Philos. Soc. Sci.) 2020, 43, 92–98. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mourali, M.; Laroche, M.; Pons, F. Antecedents of consumer relative preference for interpersonal information sources in pre-purchase search. J. Consum. Behav. 2005, 4, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Von Storch, H.F. Cours d’économie politique. In Ou, Exposition des Principes Qui Déterminent la Prospérité des Nations (Vol. 2); JP Aillaud: Paris, France, 1823. [Google Scholar]
  40. Fuchs, V.R. The service economy. In NBER Books; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  41. Prahalad, C.K.; Ramaswamy, V. Co-opting customer competence. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2000, 78, 79–90. [Google Scholar]
  42. Vargo, S.L.; Lusch, R.F. Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. In The Service-Dominant Logic of Marketing; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, 2014; pp. 21–46. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zheng, X.; Yang, Z. Research on value co-creation of tourism service from the perspective of service dominant logic. Soc. Sci. 2016, 6, 103–107. [Google Scholar]
  44. Vargo, S.L.; Maglio, P.P.; Akaka, M.A. On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. Eur. Manag. J. 2008, 26, 145–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Millward, L.J.; Hopkins, L.J. Psychological contracts, organizational and job commitment. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 1530–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Turnley, W.H.; Feldman, D.C. Psychological contract violations during corporate restructuring. Hum. Resour. Manag. 1998, 37, 71–83. [Google Scholar]
  47. Samuel, O.M.; Engelbrecht, A.S. How transformational leadership, psychological contract violation, empowerment and affective commitment influence employee’s intention to quit an organisation. S. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2021, 52, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Turnley, W.H.; Feldman, D.C. The impact of psychological contract violations on exit, voice, loyalty, and neglect. Hum. Relat. 1999, 52, 895–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hart, D.W.; Thompson, J.A. Untangling employee loyalty: A psychological contract perspective. Bus. Ethics Q. 2007, 17, 297–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tseng, L.M.; Wu, J.Y. How can financial organizations improve employee loyalty? The effects of ethical leadership, psychological contract fulfillment and organizational identification. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2017, 38, 679–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Guest, D.E. Is the psychological contract worth taking seriously? J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 1998, 19, 649–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Azeem, M.U.; Bajwa, S.U.; Shahzad, K.; Aslam, H. Psychological contract violation and turnover intention: The role of job dissatisfaction and work disengagement. Empl. Relat. Int. J. 2020, 42, 1291–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Robinson, S.L.; Kraatz, M.S.; Rousseau, D.M. Changing obligations and the psychological contract: A longitudinal study. Acad. Manag. J. 1994, 37, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yang, L.; Li, Q. Research on customer complaint management strategy based on psychological contract violation. China Collect. Econ. 2008, 3S, 60–61. [Google Scholar]
  55. Xu, X.; Wang, J. Study on loyalty of service enterprise customer based on psychological contract. Shanghai Manag. Sci. 2007, 29, 8–11. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ma, Y.; Sun, H.; Li, W. Research on the relationship between psychological contract and consumers’ willingness to cooperate. Bus. Times 2010, 23, 30–31. [Google Scholar]
  57. Llewellyn, N. The role of psychological contracts within internal service networks. Serv. Ind. J. 2001, 21, 211–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wang, B.; Zhao, J.; Wang, Z. Negative reciprocity: The influence mechanisms of psychological contract violatiom on business model innovation based on moderated mediation model. J. Ind. Eng. Eng. Manag. 2022, 36, 73–82. [Google Scholar]
  59. Robinson, S.L.; Morrison, W.E. The development of psychological contract breach and violation: A longitudinal study. J. Organ. Behav. 2000, 21, 525–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rodie, A.; Kleine, S. Consumer participation in services production and delivery. In Handbook of Services, Marketing and Management; Swartz, T., Iacobucci, D., Eds.; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2000; pp. 111–125. [Google Scholar]
  61. Minkiewicz, J.; Evans, J.; Bridson, K. How do consumers co-create their experiences? An exploration in the heritage sector. J. Mark. Manag. 2014, 30, 30–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yi, Y.; Gong, T. Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1279–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Prebensen, N.K.; Xie, J. Efficacy of co-creation and mastering on perceived value and satisfaction in tourists’ consumption. Tour. Manag. 2017, 60, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Xie, J.; Tkaczynski, A.; Prebensen, N.K. Human value co-creation behavior in tourism: Insight from an Australian whale watching experience. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Wang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Fan, W. The research on the relationship among high performance work system, psychological contract violation and counterproductive work behavior: A moderated mediation model. J. Ind. Eng. Eng. Manag. 2018, 32, 8–16. [Google Scholar]
  66. Fida, R.; Paciello, M.; Tramontano, C.; Fontaine, R.G.; Barbaranelli, C.; Farnese, M.L. An integrative approach to understanding counterproductive work behavior: The roles of stressors, negative emotions, and moral disengagement. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 130, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  67. Baron, R.A.; Zhao, H.; Miao, Q. Personal motives, moral disengagement, and unethical decisions by entrepreneurs: Cognitive mechanisms on the “slippery slope”. J. Bus. Ethics 2015, 128, 107–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bandura, A.; Barbaranelli, C.; Caprara, G.V.; Pastorelli, C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1996, 71, 364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yang, W.; Liang, S. Review on Bandura’s theory of moral disengagement. Psychol. Res. 2022, 15, 121–125. [Google Scholar]
  70. Fennell, D.A.; Thomsen, B. Tourism & animal suffering: Mapping the future. Ann. Tour. Res. 2021, 91, 103317. [Google Scholar]
  71. Tickle, L.; von Essen, E. The seven sins of hunting tourism. Ann. Tour. Res. 2020, 84, 102996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Su, L.; Cheng, J.; Wen, J.; Kozak, M.; Teo, S. Does seeing deviant other-tourist behavior matter? The moderating role of travel companions. Tour. Manag. 2022, 88, 104434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gursoy, D.; McCleary, K.W. Travelers’ prior knowledge and its impact on their information search behavior. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2004, 28, 66–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Tsaur, S.H.; Yen, C.H.; Chen, C.L. Independent tourist knowledge and skills. Ann. Tour. Res. 2010, 37, 1035–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Cajiao, D.; Leung, Y.F.; Larson, L.R.; Tejedo, P.; Benayas, J. Tourists’ motivations, learning, and trip satisfaction facilitate pro-environmental outcomes of the Antarctic tourist experience. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2022, 37, 100454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Gursoy, D. Prior product knowledge and its influence on the traveler’s information search behavior. J. Hosp. Leis. Mark. 2003, 10, 113–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sharifpour, M.; Walters, G.; Ritchie, B.W.; Winter, C. Investigating the Role of Prior Knowledge in Tourist Decision Making. J. Travel Res. 2014, 53, 307–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Petty, R.E.; Briñol, P. The elaboration likelihood model. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology; SAGE Publications Ltd.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011; Volume 1, pp. 224–245. [Google Scholar]
  79. Cong, L.C. Perceived risk and destination knowledge in the satisfaction-loyalty intention relationship: An empirical study of european tourists in vietnam. J. Outdoor Recreat. Tour. 2021, 33, 100343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Diamantis, D. Ecotourism: Characteristics and Involvement Patterns of Its Consumers in the United Kingdom (Cutting Edge). Internstional J. Tour. Res. 2000, 2, 214–217. [Google Scholar]
  81. Rousseau, D.M. Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 1989, 2, 121–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dang, N.; Xiao, H.; Li, W. Empirical research on the influencing factors of tourists’ pro-environment behavior: Based on the dual perspectives of emotion and cognition. Hum. Geogr. 2021, 36, 185–192. [Google Scholar]
  83. Bandura, A. Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J. Moral Educ. 2002, 31, 101–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Li, W.; Yin, C.; Luo, C.; Wang, X.; Zhang, T.; Wang, J.; Zhang, Y. Analyses on the Development Prospect of Forest Health Industry in China. J. Cent. South Univ. For. Technol. (Soc. Sci.) 2019, 13, 76–80. [Google Scholar]
  85. Dabholkar, P.A. How to improve perceived service quality by increasing customer participation. In 1990 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 483–487. [Google Scholar]
  86. Li, L. Study On Influence Mechanism of Visitor Experience Value Co-creation: A Case Study of Xiangshan Park in Beijing. Geogr. Geo Inf. Sci. 2012, 3, 96–100. [Google Scholar]
  87. Baron, R.M.; Kenny, D.A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1986, 51, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Preacher, K.J.; Hayes, A.F. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behav. Res. Methods Instrum. Comput. 2004, 36, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Aiken, L.S.; West, S.G. Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1994, 45, 119–120. [Google Scholar]
  90. Cohen, P.; West, S.G.; Aiken, L.S. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Psychology Press: London, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  91. Zhong, X.; Wang, T.; Song, T.; Fu, Y. Does psychological contract breach lead to unethical behavior of employees? The mediating role of moral disengagement and the moderating role of Machiavellianism. J. Ind. Eng. Eng. Manag. 2020, 34, 38–45. [Google Scholar]
  92. Assiouras, I.; Skourtis, G.; Giannopoulos, A.; Buhalis, D.; Koniordos, M. Value co-creation and customer citizenship behavior. Ann. Tour. Res. 2019, 78, 102742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. González-Mansilla, Ó.; Berenguer-Contrí, G.; Serra-Cantallops, A. The impact of value co-creation on hotel brand equity and customer satisfaction. Tour. Manag. 2019, 75, 51–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Mvondo, G.F.N.; Jing, F.; Hussain, K.; Raza, M.A. Converting tourists into evangelists: Exploring the role of tourists’ participation in value co-creation in enhancing brand evangelism, empowerment, and commitment. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2022, 52, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kim, H.; Stepchenkova, S.; Babalou, V. Branding destination co-creatively: A case study of tourists’ involvement in the naming of a local attraction. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2018, 28, 189–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kuo, I.L. The effectiveness of environmental interpretation at resource-Sensitive tourism destinations. Int. J. Tour. Res. 2002, 4, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Armstrong, E.K.; Kern, C.L. Demarketing manages visitor demand in the Blue Mountains National Park. J. Ecotourism 2011, 10, 21–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Iakovoglou, V.; Zaimes, G.N. Enhancing rural areas while safeguarding ecosystems through sustainable practice of Ecosystem Based Approaches (EBA) with emphasis on ecotourism. Int. J. Econ. Plants 2017, 4, 134–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Iakovoglou, V.; Zaimes, G.N.; Bermúdez-Cañete, M.A.; García, J.L.; Giménez, M.C.; Calderón-Guerrero, C.; Ioras, F.; Abrudan, I. Understanding and Enhancing Ecotourism Opportunities through Education. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Environ. Chem. Ecol. Geol. Geophys. Eng. 2015, 9, 2760–2764. [Google Scholar]
  100. Schismenos, S.; Zaimes, G.N.; Iakovoglou, V.; Emmanouloudis, D. Environmental sustainability and ecotourism of riparian and deltaic ecosystems: Opportunities for rural Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, Greece. Int. J. Environ. Stud. 2018, 76, 675–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 04750 g001 550
Figure 1. The structure of ecotourism [2].
Figure 1. The structure of ecotourism [2].
Sustainability 15 04750 g001
Sustainability 15 04750 g002 550
Figure 2. Theoretical model.
Figure 2. Theoretical model.
Sustainability 15 04750 g002
Sustainability 15 04750 g003 550
Figure 3. Attractions and panorama of Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Area. Source: https://m3-ptrip.jd.com/picList, accessed on 21 January 2023.
Figure 3. Attractions and panorama of Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Area. Source: https://m3-ptrip.jd.com/picList, accessed on 21 January 2023.
Sustainability 15 04750 g003
Sustainability 15 04750 g004 550
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the moderating effect of professional knowledge.
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of the moderating effect of professional knowledge.
Sustainability 15 04750 g004
Sustainability 15 04750 g005 550
Figure 5. Promotional map and signage in the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Zone. Source: https://image.baidu.com/, accessed on 21 January 2023.
Figure 5. Promotional map and signage in the Yellow River Estuary Ecotourism Zone. Source: https://image.baidu.com/, accessed on 21 January 2023.
Sustainability 15 04750 g005
Table
Table 1. Sample characteristic analysis.
Table 1. Sample characteristic analysis.
ItemsCategoryPercentage
GenderMale43.3%
Female56.7%
Age<186.9%
18–2420.4%
25–3421.1%
35–4418.9%
45–5419.6%
≥5513.1%
Average annual income (RMB)<20,0009.9%
20,000–50,00025.8%
50,000–100,00029.9%
>100,00034.4%
Academic qualificationsJunior high school and below9.2%
High school or junior college25.0%
University (undergraduate and college)46.3%
Graduate Students19.5%
Table
Table 2. Reliability analysis.
Table 2. Reliability analysis.
VariablesCronbach’s α Number of Items
Transactional psychological contract violation0.9005
Relational psychological contract violation0.9445
Moral disengagement0.97915
Expertise0.8383
Value co-creation0.9544
Overall scale0.94232
Table
Table 3. Validation factor analysis.
Table 3. Validation factor analysis.
VariablesCombination χ 2 d f χ 2 / d f RMSEACFIIFI
Five-factor modelTPCV; RPCV; MD; ET; VCC2009.4054543.3260.0750.9300.930
Four-factor modelTPCV + RPCV; MD; ET; VCC2222.9484584.8540.0800.9200.921
Three-factor modelTPCV + RPCV + MD; ET; VCC6703.11346114.5400.1490.7190.719
Two-factor modelTPCV + RPCV + MD + ET; VCC7487.95646316.1730.1580.6830.684
One-factor modelTPCV + RPCV + MD + ET + VCC10245.97646422.0820.1860.5590.560
Note: TPCV indicates transactional psychological contract violation; RPCV indicates relational psychological contract violation; MD indicates moral disengagement; ET indicates expertise; and VCC indicates value co-creation. + denotes combining two factors into one factor.
Table
Table 4. Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables.
Table 4. Means, standard deviations and correlations of variables.
Variables123456789
1 SEX1
2 Age-1
3 Average
annual income		-0.113 *1
4 Education--0.069 **1
5 TPCV--0.213 **0.144 **1
6 RPCV--0.067 ** 0.834 **1
7 ET--0.561 **0.055 **0.125 **0.107 **1
8 MD0.222 **---0.301 **0.320 **0.246 **1
9 VCC0.145 **---0.111 **0.096 **0.304 **0.125 **1
Mean1.6522.1272.8560.0394.0774.2093.9602.1814.991
SD.0.4880.7450.8840.0631.5101.5281.3591.4701.516
Note: N = 556, coefficient r > 0 (the absolute value), * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01. TPCV indicates transactional psychological contract violation; RPCV indicates relational psychological contract violation; MD indicates moral disengagement; ET indicates expertise; and VCC indicates value co-creation.
Table
Table 5. Results of hierarchical regression analysis.
Table 5. Results of hierarchical regression analysis.
Variable TypeItemsMDVCC
M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8
Constant termsConstantsCons.Cons.Cons.Cons.Cons.Cons.Cons.Cons.
Control variableControlControlControlControlControlControlControlControlControl
Independent variableTPCV 0.283 ** −0.118 ** −0.122 *
RPCV 0.212 ** −0.102 * −0.049 *
Mediating
variable		MD −0.105 **−0.159 **−0.198 **−0.322 **
Moderating
variable		ET 0.391 **0.414 **
Interaction itemsMD × ET 0.138 **
R20.0450.1440.0680.1730.2400.2520.1430.185
ΔR2 0.099 ** 0.105 **0.131 **0.012 **0.125 **0.042 **
F8.22313.639 **17.983 **26.570 **18.56828.24 **33.362 **33.985 **
Note: * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01. TPCV indicates transactional psychological contract violation; RPCV indicates relational psychological contract violation; MD indicates moral disengagement; ET indicates expertise; and VCC indicates value co-creation. Cons. indicates constant.
Table
Table 6. Mediating effect of psychological contract violation on value co-creation (Bootstrap).
Table 6. Mediating effect of psychological contract violation on value co-creation (Bootstrap).
Mediation EffectEffectSd. Errorp95% [LLCI, ULCI]
TPCV→MD→VCC−0.111 **0.0410.006[−0.191, −0.031]
RPCV→MD→VCC−0.095 *0.0400.018[−0.174, −0.016]
Note: * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01. TPCV indicates transactional psychological contract violation; RPCV indicates relational psychological contract violation; MD indicates moral disengagement; and VCC indicates value co-creation.
Table
Table 7. Moderating effects of different magnitudes.
Table 7. Moderating effects of different magnitudes.
Degree EffectSd. Error95% [LLCI, ULCI]
High5.319 **−0.1540.041[−0.234, −0.073]
Medium3.960 *−0.3440.045[−0.433, −0.256]
Low2.602 **−0.5350.068[−0.669, −0.401]
Note: * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01.
Table
Table 8. Hypotheses and whether they are passed or not.
Table 8. Hypotheses and whether they are passed or not.
HypothesesPassed or Not
H1
Hypothesis 1a.
Transactional psychological contract violation negatively affects eco-tourists’ behavior of participating in scenic value co-creation.
Passed
Hypothesis 1b.
Relational psychological contract violation negatively affects eco-tourists’ behavior of participating in scenic value co-creation.
Passed
H2
Hypothesis 2a.
Transactional psychological contract violation has a significant positive effect on moral disengagement.
Passed
Hypothesis 2b.
Relational psychological contract violation has a significant positive effect on moral disengagement.
Passed
H3
Hypothesis 3.
Moral disengagement has a significant positive effect on value co-creation.
Passed
H4
Hypothesis 4a.
Moral disengagement plays a mediating role between transactional psychological contract violation and eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation.
Passed
Hypothesis 4b.
Moral disengagement plays a mediating role between relational psychological contract violation and eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation.
Passed
H5
Hypothesis 5.
Expertise negatively moderates a negative influence of moral disengagement on eco-tourists’ participation in scenic value co-creation.
Passed
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Liu, H.; Hu, P.; Shi, K.; Zhang, Y. Does Psychological Contract Violation Change the Original Intention of Eco-Tourists to Participate in Scenic Value Co-Creation? Sustainability 2023, 15, 4750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064750

AMA Style

Liu H, Hu P, Shi K, Zhang Y. Does Psychological Contract Violation Change the Original Intention of Eco-Tourists to Participate in Scenic Value Co-Creation? Sustainability. 2023; 15(6):4750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064750

Chicago/Turabian Style

Liu, Hailing, Ping Hu, Kewei Shi, and Yudan Zhang. 2023. "Does Psychological Contract Violation Change the Original Intention of Eco-Tourists to Participate in Scenic Value Co-Creation?" Sustainability 15, no. 6: 4750. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15064750

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop