Determinants of Consumer Intentions to Participate in High Co-Creation Tourism Activities During and After COVID-19–Model Inventory

Abstract

The Determinants of Consumer Intentions to Participate in High Co-Creation Tourism Activities During and After COVID-19–Model Inventory is an empirical psychometric instrument developed by Ainhize Eletxigerra, Ana Maria Caldeira, and Elisabeth Kastenholz (2023). Built upon a behavioral cost-benefit approach and grounded in the transactional paradigm of perceived risk theory, the scale operationalizes the multi-faceted determinants that govern tourists’ decision-making processes regarding high co-creation tourism activities (HCCTA). The instrument was validated within the experiential sector of wine tourism across Iberian adult populations (Spain and Portugal), evaluating consumer intentions across two distinct epidemiological temporalities: during the active persistence of the pandemic and following its prospective eradication.

The inventory captures an intricate structural system consisting of first-order constructs and a reflective-reflective second-order hierarchical construct. The evaluated dimensions encompass the physical activity setting, generalized fear of COVID-19, perceived physical risk (modeled as a higher-order construct composed of perceived susceptibility and perceived severity), emotional risk, information risk, financial risk, expected enjoyment (representing the core perceived benefit), and bifurcated behavioral intentions (intention to participate during COVID-19 vs. intention to participate after eradication). The primary psychometric battery comprises a 33-item inventory assessed via a standardized 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (“Totally disagree”) to 7 (“Totally agree”). Structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) confirmed robust psychometric properties: all standardized factor loadings exceeded 0.70, Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values exceeded 0.50, and both Composite Reliability (CR) and Dijkstra-Henseler’s rho (ρ_A) surpassed the 0.70 threshold. Discriminant validity was rigorously established via the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT_.85). This comprehensive scale provides a definitive framework for examining risk-benefit negotiations in interactive, immersive service environments during epidemiological disruptions.

Keywords

Cost-Benefit Approach, Emotional Risk, Expected Enjoyment, Fear of COVID-19, Financial Risk, Information Risk, Intention to Participate, Perceived Physical Risk, Value Co-Creation, Wine Tourism Context

Authors

The measurement model was conceived, developed, and validated by an international research team specializing in tourism marketing, spatial dynamics, and consumer psychology:

• Ainhize Eletxigerra (ORCID: 0000-0002-1059-1073) — Department of Marketing (Financial Economics II), Faculty of Economics and Business, University of the Basque Country (UPV/EHU), Bilbao, Spain. Correspondence email: [email protected].
• Ana Maria Caldeira (ORCID: 0000-0002-5712-0324) — Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Centre of Studies on Geography and Spatial Planning (CEGOT), University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. Email: [email protected].
• Elisabeth Kastenholz — Department of Economics, Management, Industrial Engineering and Tourism (DEGEIT), GOVCOPP research unit, University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal. Email: [email protected].

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Determinants of Consumer Intentions to Participate in High Co-Creation Tourism Activities During and After COVID-19–Model Inventory is to decipher the socio-cognitive mechanisms that dictate human participation in intensive, face-to-face experiential services under health-related vulnerabilities. Co-creation activities—defined as immersive interactions where tourists actively collaborate with service providers, local hosts, or fellow travelers to co-produce their experiences—represent the pinnacle of modern experiential tourism, prominently observed in sectors like enotourism (wine harvesting, stomping, collaborative blending workshops, cellar tours).

However, high co-creation tourism activities (HCCTA) inherently require physical proximity, sustained interpersonal engagement, shared physical touchpoints, and collective bodily presence. In the wake of airborne respiratory pandemics such as COVID-19, these fundamental characteristics transform from sources of sensory engagement into acute vectors of perceived biophysical and emotional threat. Prior to this instrument, behavioral research largely evaluated travel intentions through generic crisis models that failed to isolate the paradox of participatory co-creation: namely, that the very interactive mechanisms that generate superior hedonic benefits simultaneously amplify multidimensional customer perceived risks.

This measurement model fulfills critical theoretical and practical functions:

• Deconstructing the Cost-Benefit Calculus: It quantitatively juxtaposes hedonic benefits (expected enjoyment) against a taxonomy of pandemic-induced perceived sacrifices (biophysical, emotional, financial, and informational vulnerabilities).
• Temporal Bifurcation of Behavioral Intentions: It dissociates proximate behavioral willingness during an active outbreak from deferred post-eradication behavioral willingness, capturing the psychological threshold required for consumer re-engagement.
• Risk-Mitigating Environmental Variables: It incorporates the situational role of the physical activity setting (e.g., outdoor vs. indoor spatial arrangements), allowing researchers to observe how spatial contexts moderate subjective risk appraisal.
• Actionable Diagnostic Profiling for Service Design: It supplies destination managers, enotourism operators, and leisure planners with empirical metrics to identify whether consumer hesitancy is rooted in institutional mistrust (information risk), monetary cancellation fears (financial risk), social discomfort (emotional risk), or severe biological health anxieties (physical risk).

Psychological Construct

The scale models consumer decision-making as a multi-domain psychological construct centered on cognitive appraisal, affective response, and risk-benefit reconciliation. The model organizes its latent dimensions into three major psychological subsystems: risk appraisals (costs), affective hedonic evaluations (benefits), and behavioral commitments (intentions).

1. Environmental Context and Affective Predispositions

• Physical Activity Setting: Operationalized as the tourist’s perceptual recognition of the spatial ecology where the co-creation takes place, specifically differentiating between enclosed environments and ventilated, open-air outdoor settings. Spatial epidemiology indicates that outdoor settings markedly reduce airborne pathogen concentration; cognitively, this serves as an antecedent cue dampening downstream threat appraisals.
• Fear of COVID-19: A persistent, affective-emotional state characterized by heightened apprehension, psychological tension, dread, and bodily worry regarding the virus. Grounded in the affective paradigm of health psychology, generalized fear functions as an emotional filter that inflates subjective risk appraisal across situational stimuli.

2. Multidimensional Perceived Risk Architecture (Costs)

The scale synthesizes classical consumer perceived risk theory with health-belief constructs, classifying perceived risk into distinct perceptual channels:

• Physical Risk (Second-Order Construct): The anticipated threat of bodily harm, infection, and subsequent morbidity arising from participation in the activity. Physical risk is mathematically and theoretically structured as a reflective-reflective second-order construct composed of:
• Perceived Susceptibility: The subjective probability or subjective likelihood of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a direct consequence of participating in the co-creation activity.
• Perceived Severity: The perceived magnitude of personal medical, physical, and psychological harm should an infection occur, including severe complications, hospitalization, or enduring health deficits.
• Emotional Risk: The psychological discomfort, social distress, acute apprehension, and unwarranted internal tension that an individual expects to suffer during the co-creation experience due to proximity to strangers and departure from one’s safety bubble.
• Information Risk: The cognitive deficit resulting from insufficient, ambiguous, or poorly communicated safety protocols, health regulations, and operational guidelines at the activity venue, leading to decision-making under acute uncertainty.
• Financial Risk: The perceived probability of monetary loss, non-refundable booking expenses, and forfeited investments resulting from unexpected quarantine mandates, institutional mobility restrictions, or sudden activity cancellations.

3. Perceived Hedonic Benefit and Behavioral Intentions

• Expected Enjoyment: The primary perceived benefit within the hedonic service economy, reflecting multi-sensory stimulation, excitement, delight, joy, and intrinsic pleasure anticipated from immersive co-creation.
• Intention to Participate During COVID-19: The behavioral readiness to engage in high co-creation activities while the pathogen remains an active societal threat, without full population immunization or complete disease containment.
• Intention to Participate After COVID-19 Eradication: The conditional behavioral commitment to engage in high co-creation activities only once health authorities confirm total disease eradication or widespread population immunity.

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the model integrates three seminal theoretical traditions: the Cost-Benefit Paradigm of consumer decision-making, Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), and the Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic of Value Co-Creation.

Structural Framework Architecture

Exogenous Pre-conditions: Physical Activity Setting (Outdoor Context) & Baseline Fear of COVID-19

Perceived Costs (Sacrifices): Physical Risk [Susceptibility + Severity] + Emotional Risk + Information Risk + Financial Risk

Perceived Benefits: Expected Enjoyment (Fun, Excitement, Delight, Pleasure)

Outcome Manifestations: ⇒ Intention During COVID-19 vs. Intention After COVID-19 Eradication

1. The Cost-Benefit Paradigm

Classical microeconomic and behavioral decision paradigms posit that consumers act as boundedly rational decision-makers who evaluate alternatives by weighing perceived gains against expected sacrifices. Within service environments, perceived value emerges from the net balance between gross utility and perceived risk. When risks—conceptualized as multi-dimensional subjective losses—exceed the utility derived from expected enjoyment, avoidance behavior occurs. Eletxigerra, Caldeira, and Kastenholz (2023) translated this framework into epidemiological consumer behavior: while co-creation offers elevated hedonic value (enjoyment), the health crisis introduces severe physical, psychological, operational, and financial costs that alter the equilibrium of consumer intentions.

2. Protection Motivation Theory and Health Belief Dimensions

Originally formulated by R. W. Rogers (1975) and expanded by Kim Witte (1996) via the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM), threat appraisal operates as an essential cognitive gateway. According to PMT, individuals process environmental threats by evaluating two primary parameters: perceived susceptibility (the subjective vulnerability of contracting an affliction) and perceived severity (the seriousness of the affliction’s ramifications). In the HCCTA model, physical risk is structured hierarchically through this PMT architecture, positing that physical health anxiety is an interactive composite of how easily one might contract SARS-CoV-2 in an interactive setting and how devastating that infection would be to their physiological well-being.

3. Service-Dominant Logic and Value Co-Creation

Advanced by Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2008), S-D Logic posits that value is not merely embedded in manufactured outputs delivered to passive consumers, but is fundamentally co-created through reciprocal, relational, and collaborative actions between beneficiaries and service systems. In wine tourism, high co-creation activities (e.g., harvesting grapes with local vintners, manual pressing, participating in guided cellar tastings) generate intense, non-replicable hedonic experiences. However, S-D logic during a pandemic faces a behavioral barrier: because high value co-creation demands close physical proximity, shared physical tools, and extensive interpersonal socialization, the co-creative environment paradoxically functions as an incubator for risk contagion, requiring explicit cognitive trade-offs before behavioral commitment takes place.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Determinants of Consumer Intentions to Participate in High Co-Creation Tourism Activities During and After COVID-19–Model was rigorously evaluated using experimental scenario methodologies and Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in accordance with the established psychometric protocols of Hair et al. (2022).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates the extent to which indicator variables accurately reflect their designated latent construct. In the measurement model evaluation:

• Standardized Outer Loadings: All standardized indicator loadings on their respective first-order latent constructs exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.70 (with empirical loadings ranging between 0.75 and 0.94), demonstrating that each individual item shares substantial variance with its designated latent factor.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): The Average Variance Extracted for all reflective constructs comfortably surpassed the critical cut-off value of 0.50. This indicates that the latent constructs account for more than 50% of the variance observed across their respective item sets, confirming robust convergent validity across all measured domains.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity—the empirical verification that constructs within the structural network are distinct from one another—was evaluated using conservative, contemporary criteria:

• Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT): All construct pairings successfully conformed to the rigorous HTMT_.85 criterion (Henseler et al., 2015), exhibiting maximum correlation ratios well below the conservative threshold of 0.85. This demonstrates that each latent dimension captures unique psychological phenomena rather than redundant collinear constructs.
• Fornell-Larcker Criterion: In addition to HTMT thresholds, the square root of the AVE for every individual construct was observed to be greater than any inter-construct correlation involving that dimension, providing traditional corroboration of empirical distinctiveness.

Second-Order Construct Validation

To establish the hierarchical structure of Physical Risk, the authors modeled it as a reflective-reflective second-order construct driven by perceived susceptibility and perceived severity. Evaluation of this higher-order structure confirmed that both sub-dimensions loaded significantly on physical risk (p < 0.001). Furthermore, potential multicollinearity among the constituent dimensions was ruled out: all Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values fell substantially below the conservative psychometric threshold of 3.0 (Hair et al., 2022), confirming that susceptibility and severity provide independent, non-redundant variance to the higher-order physical risk construct.

Reliability

The scale exhibits robust internal consistency across all latent dimensions. Rather than relying solely on traditional Cronbach’s alpha coefficients—which can underestimate internal consistency in structural equation modeling due to assuming equal item weightings—the instrument was evaluated using advanced contemporary reliability metrics.

• Composite Reliability (CR): The composite reliability coefficients across all first-order constructs and the higher-order physical risk dimension substantially exceeded the universally accepted 0.70 benchmark, with empirical scores ranging from 0.82 to 0.95. This demonstrates exceptional construct-level consistency.
• Dijkstra-Henseler’s rho (ρ_A): As a precise measure of internal consistency within PLS-SEM that calculates consistent reliability without the biases of alpha or overestimations of CR, all computed ρ_A values surpassed 0.70. This confirms that the survey items generate coherent, stable, and reproducible assessments of the targeted latent traits.
• Item-Total Correlations and Indicator Reliability: All item-to-construct communalities exceeded 0.50, demonstrating that measurement error remained constrained across both Iberian adult cohorts (Spanish and Portuguese samples).

Factor Analysis

The factor architecture of the inventory was examined through a two-stage structural equation modeling framework that accommodated the structural complexity of first-order latent variables and higher-order hierarchical dimensions.

First-Order Measurement Model

During the first analytical stage, confirmatory structural modeling evaluated the individual item-to-construct allocations across the twelve primary variables: Physical activity setting (contextual anchor), generalized Fear of COVID-19, Perceived Susceptibility, Perceived Severity, Emotional Risk, Information Risk, Financial Risk, Expected Enjoyment, Intention to Participate During COVID-19, and Intention to Participate After COVID-19 Eradication. Confirmatory testing substantiated that each individual factor demonstrated distinct eigenvalue separation and unifactorial cohesion without cross-loadings exceeding acceptable bounds.

Latent Construct	Model Order	Items	Reliability (CR / ρA)	AVE
Physical Activity Setting	First-Order	1 (Context)	N/A (Single Item)	1.00
Fear of COVID-19	First-Order	4 items	> 0.85	> 0.60
Perceived Susceptibility	First-Order (Sub-dimension)	3 items	> 0.88	> 0.70
Perceived Severity	First-Order (Sub-dimension)	3 items	> 0.85	> 0.65
Physical Risk	Second-Order Hierarchical	6 items (via subscales)	> 0.85	> 0.55
Emotional Risk	First-Order	3 items	> 0.88	> 0.70
Information Risk	First-Order	3 items	> 0.82	> 0.60
Financial Risk	First-Order	3 items	> 0.84	> 0.63
Expected Enjoyment	First-Order	5 items	> 0.92	> 0.70
Intention During COVID-19	First-Order	2 items	> 0.85	> 0.75
Intention After Eradication	First-Order	3 items	> 0.87	> 0.70

Second-Order Hierarchical Specification

In the second analytical stage, the higher-order Physical Risk construct was assessed using a disjoint two-stage approach or repeated indicator approach in PLS-SEM. Latent variable scores for Susceptibility and Severity from Stage 1 were specified to reflect the overarching Physical Risk construct. The standardized path weights from Physical Risk to Perceived Susceptibility and Perceived Severity were both statistically significant at p < 0.001, confirming that these two first-order components explain the variance of physical health threats in the tourism experience.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Designation: Determinants of Consumer Intentions to Participate in High Co-Creation Tourism Activities During and After COVID-19–Model Inventory (Eletxigerra, Caldeira, & Kastenholz, 2023).
• Psychometric Classification: Self-report behavioral inventory / Scenario-based experimental questionnaire.
• Context / Target Setting: High co-creation tourism activities (HCCTA), empirical validation within wine tourism (harvesting, wine processing, guided interactive tastings).
• Language Editions: Developed in English; systematically adapted and validated via translation and back-translation procedures into Spanish and Portuguese.
• Target Populations: Adults (18 years and older), across young adult, thirties, and middle-aged/mature consumer demographics.
• Total Number of Items: 33 specific inventory items across all factor domains, demographic classifications, and subscales.
• Response Format: Standardized 7-point Likert-type scale anchored from 1 = “Totally disagree” to 7 = “Totally agree”.
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • Subscale scores are calculated as the arithmetic mean or composite latent variable score of their constituent items.
  • Higher scores on the Fear, Susceptibility, Severity, Emotional Risk, Information Risk, and Financial Risk subscales indicate higher perceived costs and psychological vulnerabilities.
  • Higher scores on Expected Enjoyment reflect elevated anticipation of hedonic benefit.
  • Physical Risk is calculated as a second-order latent score derived from the combined variance of the Susceptibility and Severity subscale indicators.
  • Intentions are computed separately for immediate participation during the health crisis versus deferred participation contingent on complete disease eradication.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scale was developed and published in 2023 by researchers Ainhize Eletxigerra, Ana Maria Caldeira, and Elisabeth Kastenholz. According to the original publication policies, the instrument was designed for academic non-commercial use.

• Permissions: Free for use in non-commercial academic research, pedagogical environments, and scientific inquiry. Researchers utilizing the instrument must properly cite the seminal 2023 article published in the Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management.
• Fee: No licensing fees are required for academic research and teaching activities.
• Commercial Application: Commercial deployments, proprietary enterprise diagnostics, and corporate consulting tools require prior written permission and licensing agreements from the copyright holders and the publishing entity (Elsevier).

References

The development, validation, and theoretical framework of this measurement model draw upon the following scientific literature:

• Ahorsu, D. K., Lin, C. Y., Imani, V., Saffari, M., Griffiths, M. D., & Pakpour, A. H. (2022). The Fear of COVID-19 Scale: Development and initial validation. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 20(3), 1537–1545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-020-00270-8
• Berry, C., Burton, S., & Howlett, E. (2020). Assessment of perceived risk and willingness to fly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Travel Research, 60(8), 1746–1758. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287520978713
• Eletxigerra, A., Caldeira, A. M., & Kastenholz, E. (2023). A cost-benefit approach of consumers’ intentions to participate in highly co-creative tourism activities during and after COVID-19: Evidence from wine tourism. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 56, 506–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhtm.2023.08.010
• Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2022). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
• Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
• Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.68.1.1.24036
• Witte, K. (1996). Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication, 1(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/108107396127988

Items of the Scale