Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Destination Marketing & Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jdmm

Rebuilding international tourism after a pandemic: Using Hofstede’s

cultural dimensions to identify markets with lower pandemic-related
travel risks
Ting-Yen (Tim) Huang a, *, Evan J. Jordan b, B. Bynum Boley c, Kyle Maurice Woosnam c,
Xiao Xiao d, Naho Maruyama e, Camila Rojas c
a
Travel and Tourism Program, International College, Ming Chuan University, Gui Shan, Taoyuan City, Taiwan
b
Department of Health and Wellness Design, School of Public Health, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
c
Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA
d
School of Community Resources & Development, Hainan University- Arizona State University International Tourism College, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
e
Faculty of Regional Policy, Takasaki City University of Economics, Takasaki, Gunma, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As international travel begins to rebound from the pandemic, there is value in analyzing pandemic-related travel
Hofstede risks to know which markets are likely to come back online first. Thus, this paper examines the perceptions of
Cross-cultural analysis travel-related risks, governmental response, and intention to travel to the U.S. from the top five inbound in­
COVID-19
ternational markets to the U.S. (Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, and the U.K.). ANOVA was adopted to analyze
Pandemic
Travel intentions
1653 online survey responses from potential travelers. Utilizing Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, the results
Travel risk revealed significant differences in travel-related risks, governmental response, and travel intentions among
travelers from these five countries, suggesting marketers should adopt different strategies depending on a target
market’s cultural characteristics. International travel makes up a significant portion of many countries’ GDP, and
knowing which top global markets are more resilient and likely to come back online first provides DMOs with
critical information on using their marketing dollars wisely.

1. Introduction 2023). Although some studies have investigated travel risk perceptions
and behavior during and after the pandemic (Abraham, Bremser, Car­
As travel restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic begin reno, Crowley-Cyr, & Moreno, 2021; Neuburger & Egger, 2021), little is
to wane, there is value in looking at perceptions of pandemic-related known about how potential travelers perceive various governmental
travel risks so that future tourism managers and marketers can know responses and their future international travel intentions.
how to approach similar crises. International travel makes up a signifi­ In this study, we aimed to address these gaps in knowledge by
cant portion of many countries’ GDP, and knowing which top global comparing individuals’ perceptions concerning COVID-related travel
markets are more resilient and likely to come back online will provide risk, attitudes about the United States (U.S.) government’s response to
DMOs with critical information on using their marketing dollars wisely the COVID-19 pandemic, and such individuals’ intentions to travel to
(Massidda & Mattana, 2013). Much has been written about how the the U.S. The U.S. was chosen for the study because many believe the U.S.
COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented changes in the travel and government responded poorly to the COVID-19 disease at the beginning
tourism landscape, with all but essential travel grinding to a halt for a of the pandemic (Avraham, 2021). Hence, international travelers were
substantial period (Gallego & Font, 2020). While few global destinations reluctant to travel to the U.S. as a travel destination during the
escaped the realities of this altered environment, some were less affected COVID-19 pandemic (Huang, Shao, Zeng, Liu, & Li, 2021). To accom­
than others (Uğur & Akbıyık, 2020). National governments took various plish this task, we surveyed approximately 300 residents from each of
approaches to address COVID-19, and some were more effective than the top five inbound tourism markets to the U.S. (Canada, Mexico, the
others at mitigating the spread of the disease (Seyfi, Hall, & Shabani, United Kingdom (U.K.), Japan, and China) in early June 2020, which

* Corresponding author. Travel and Tourism Program, International College, Ming Chuan University, 5 De Ming Rd., Gui Shan District, Taoyuan City, 333, Taiwan.
E-mail address: th1@iu.edu (T.-Y.(T. Huang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2024.100855
Received 10 November 2022; Received in revised form 22 December 2023; Accepted 8 January 2024
Available online 20 January 2024
2212-571X/© 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

was at the height of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. that are more resilient and are likely to travel abroad will help DMOs
With the understanding that cultures differ in attitudes and beliefs with vital insights for the strategic allocation of their marketing budgets.
(Kang & Moscardo, 2006), a voluminous body of research has high­
lighted reasons for such distinctions. Perhaps the most popular 2. Literature review and hypotheses
conceptualization is Hofstede’s dimensions of national culture (Hof­
stede, 2011). We utilized four of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions: indi­ 2.1. Hofstede’s cultural model
vidualism/collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, long/short-term
orientation, and indulgence/restraint to explain differences in risk per­ Hofstede’s (1983) cultural model was first established with four di­
ceptions, governmental response, and future travel intentions. mensions and then expanded to five 22 years later. Those dimensions
COVID-19 is a global pandemic, and perceived travel risks are likely include power distance, individualism, masculinity, uncertainty avoid­
very different from previous regional disease outbreaks (Reisinger & ance, indulgence, and long-term orientation (Hofstede, 2011). Previous
Mavondo, 2006). Research has shown that perceived health risks and tourism studies have adopted Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to explain
uncertainty significantly affect future travel plans (Chua, Al-Ansi, Lee, & tourists’ behavior (Litvin, Crotts, & Hefner, 2004; Manrai & Manrai,
Han, 2021). As the pandemic has ebbed and flowed in various countries 2011) and intention (bib_ng_et_al_2007Ng, Lee, & Soutar, 2007).
due to differences in government regulations, cultural norms, and Moreover, the model was also used to compare cultural differences and
vaccination campaigns (Fan, Lu, Qiu, & Xiao, 2023), little is understood values among countries (Mazanec, Crotts, Gursoy, & Lu, 2015).
about whether those from different cultural backgrounds perceive travel This study utilized four cultural dimensions (i.e., individualism,
risks and travel differently. Hence, we raised the following research uncertainty avoidance, long-term orientation, and indulgence) directly
questions. related to tourists’ perceptions of travel risks, safety, and intention to
travel internationally. Fig. 1 shows the top five international inbound
(1) Are there differences among different cultural backgrounds/ markets to the U.S. (Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, and the UK) and
countries in travel risk perceptions? their scores for the four cultural dimensions. Individualism (versus
(2) Are there differences among different cultural backgrounds/ collectivism) measures the degree of independence in how people work
countries in governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic? within society. Countries scoring high on individualism are individual­
(3) Are there differences among different cultural backgrounds/ istic societies where people act with great independence. Meng (2010)
countries’ future international travel intentions? indicated that tourists with collectivistic cultures prefer to ensure se­
(4) How do cultural dimensions influence travel risk perceptions, curity and reduce perceived travel risks. Uncertainty avoidance is a
governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and future society’s tolerance for uncertainty, risk, and ambiguity. High uncer­
international travel intentions? tainty avoidance means people feel more anxious and stressed when
facing uncertain or unknown situations. Long-term orientation (versus
To address these research questions, we selected the top-five inbound short-term orientation) implies the preference for stability, frugality,
tourism markets in the U.S. (Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and respect for tradition, and future benefits. Indulgence (versus restraint)
China) and adopted Hofstede’s cultural model to compare residents’ speaks to the degree of freedom societal norms give citizens in fulfilling
perceptions of travel risk, government response to the COVID-19 their human desires.
pandemic, and international travel intentions during the pandemic.
Further, we utilized Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to explain residents’ 2.2. Perceived travel risk and disease outbreak
travel risk perceptions, governmental responses, and international
travel intentions. Perceived travel risk is the risk perceived or experienced by tourists
Theoretically, our findings will expand the understanding of the role during the travel process, such as making travel decisions, purchasing,
of culture in perceptions and travel intentions during times of height­ or consuming traveling services at the destination (Neuburger & Egger,
ened risk. Practically, our findings will provide valuable information for 2021). Tourism scholars have classified perceived travel risks into
countries like the U.S. about how major inbound markets may react to different categories, including physical-equipment risk, vacation risk,
future pandemics and how to best use marketing dollars to rebuild in­ destination risk, terrorism risk, health-related risk, financial risk, so­
ternational tourism. Given that international travel contributes signifi­ ciocultural risk, and risk of political instability, natural disasters, crimes,
cantly to the GDP of many countries, discerning the top global markets and accidents (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2005; Sönmez, 1998). To identify

Fig. 1. Hofstede’s model for Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, and the UK.

2
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

appropriate tourism managerial responses for travelers, Simpson and we proposed three hypotheses that the travelers’ feelings about travel
Siguaw (2008) distinguished travel risks into manageable and unman­ risk differ among five selected countries.
ageable risks. While traveling during the COVID-19 pandemic may
H8. Feelings (calmness/worry) about international travel during the
threaten personal health and safety, the situation of catching COVID-19
COVID-19 pandemic are significantly different among travelers from
is, to some degree, uncontrollable and uncertain.
Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China.
The perceived travel risks of a disease outbreak can influence in­
ternational travel and tourists’ behavior (Chua et al., 2021). Previous H9. Feelings (relaxedness/tension) about international travel during
studies have indicated that the COVID-19 pandemic tremendously the COVID-19 pandemic are significantly different among travelers from
affected the travel and tourism industry. Neuburger and Egger (2021) Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China.
also found that tourists with higher travel risk perceptions during the
H10. Feelings (composed/stressed) about international travel during
COVID-19 outbreak intended to avoid or cancel international travel.
the COVID-19 pandemic are significantly different among travelers from
Thus, it is crucial to understand further whether different cultural
Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China.
backgrounds perceive the risks of COVID-19 and react to international
Chua et al. (2021) examined tourists’ health risk perception on
travel differently. Further, nationality and cultural background are
avoidance and found that tourists who perceived travel risk and un­
highlighted as impacting tourists’ travel risk perceptions and concerns
certainty during the pandemic tended to avoid traveling internationally.
(Seabra, Dolnicar, Abrantes, & Kastenholz, 2013).
Seyfi et al. (2023) investigated how tourists perceived international
Seale et al. (2010) investigated the average Sydney residents’ risk
travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, showing that each country had
perceptions toward pandemic influenza (H1N1) 2009, finding that res­
its social, political, and economic order, which could affect tourists’ risk
idents had different levels of risk of catching H1N1 during that
perceptions on international travel. Hence, we hypothesized that risk
pandemic in 2009. Neuburger and Egger (2021) examined travel risk
perceptions of COVID-19 and international travel differ between five
perceptions among countries within the DACH region (i.e., Germany,
selected countries.
Austria, and Switzerland) and found that risk perceptions were signifi­
cantly different between these three countries even though they share H11. Risk perceptions of catching COVID-19 while traveling interna­
many cultural similarities. Hence, this study proposed three hypotheses tionally are significantly different among travelers from Canada,
that respondents’ risk perceptions are different among five selected Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China.
countries.
H12. The perceived likelihood of catching COVID-19 during interna­
H1. Risk perceptions that the average person will catch COVID-19 are tional travel over the next 12 months is significantly different among
significantly different among travelers from Canada, Mexico, the U.K., travelers from Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China.
Japan, and China.
H13. The perceptions of infecting a friend or family member with
H2. Risk perceptions that respondents themselves will catch COVID-19 COVID-19 when returning from an international trip are significantly
are significantly different among travelers from Canada, Mexico, the U. different among travelers from Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and
K., Japan, and China. China.
H3. Risk perceptions that respondents’ friends and family will catch
2.3. Government response to health crises
COVID-19 are significantly different among travelers from Canada,
Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China.
Health-related crises pose a significant threat to the tourism industry.
Wilson, Zwickle, and Walpole (2019) developed a risk perception
To mitigate the spread of COVID-19, governments worldwide have
measurement model with three factors. The model comprised (1) mea­
responded with various policies related to international travel, including
sures of concern related to the risk and health, (2) the probability of that
travel restrictions, country or city lockdowns, and quarantine policies
risk occurring, and (3) the consequences of the risk, such as seriousness
(Gössling, Scott, & Hall, 2020). Recently, governmental responses to the
or severity. The model has been adopted to examine tourist-related risk
COVID-19 pandemic have influenced tourists’ motivation and willing­
perceptions during travel (Susilowati, Anggraeni, & Rohman, 2023). To
ness to travel internationally.
combine this model with the COVID pandemic, we proposed four hy­
In the U.S., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
potheses to compare differences among five selected countries.
responded to the pandemic by implementing stay-at-home orders,
H4. The perceptions of COVID-19 affecting respondents’ health are nighttime curfews, quarantines for travelers, travel restrictions, and
significantly different across travelers from Canada, Mexico, the U.K., sanitary cordons (Gostin & Wiley, 2020). However, during the pan­
Japan, and China. demic’s crucial early days and weeks, the CDC initially told the media
that the threat of COVID-19 to the American public was low. Lewis
H5. The perceptions of whether contracting COVID-19 is out of re­
(2021) interviewed public health experts about the biggest mistakes in
spondents’ control are significantly different across travelers from
the U.S.’s response to the pandemic. These included downplaying po­
Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China.
tential dangers, sidelining experts, slow and flawed testing, inadequate
H6. The perceptions of the seriousness of the current COVID-19 situ­ tracing and quarantines, confusing mask guidance, and decentralized
ation are significantly different across travelers from Canada, Mexico, response. These problems caused the U.S. to fare worse than other
the U.K., Japan, and China. countries in the early stages of the pandemic.
Due to the U.S. government’s inadequate response to the COVID-19
H7. The perceptions that individuals will still be catching COVID-19
pandemic, the U.S.’s international tourism industry was initially hit hard
six months from now are significantly different across travelers from
by the COVID-19 pandemic (Yang & Smith, 2023). Rastegar, Seyfi, and
Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China.
Rasoolimanesh (2021) demonstrated that a government’s crisis man­
Reisinger and Mavondo (2005) discussed the relationship between
agement and preparedness can influence the intention to travel to a
travel risk and anxiety. The study mentioned that travel risk depends on
destination. They also found that respondents with more positive per­
personality characteristics. A passive personality generates peace, calm,
ceptions toward the governmental response and handling of the
and relaxation, whereas an active personality includes stress and worry.
COVID-19 outbreak had higher intentions to travel to a destination. In
Gyimothy, Braun, and Zenker (2022) and Zenker, Braun, and Gyimothy
another study, Lu and Atadil (2021) mentioned that destination safety
(2021) stated that different cultural contexts may lead to feelings of
was an influential factor for international travelers. Hence, we proposed
different levels of pandemic-induced travel anxiety and stress. Hence,
that travelers from the five selected countries have different perceptions

3
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

of the U.S. as a travel destination. response to the COVID-19 pandemic were newly created by the authors
and checked for face validity by a panel of experienced tourism re­
H14. Given the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19
searchers. Finally, questions about intentions to travel within the next
pandemic, overall perceptions of the U.S. as a travel destination are
1–5 years were adopted from Jordan et al.’s study (2018).
significantly different among travelers from Canada, Mexico, the U.K.,
Japan, and China.
3.3. Data analysis
H15. Given the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19
pandemic, safety perceptions of the U.S. as a travel destination are Frequencies were used to analyze respondents’ demographics,
significantly different among travelers from Canada, Mexico, the U.K., including gender, nationality, age, and the highest level of education. A
Japan, and China. one-way ANOVA was then used to compare risk perceptions, percep­
Furthermore, Lu and Atadil (2021) examined U.S. travelers’ in­ tions of the U.S. government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and
tentions to travel to China after the COVID-19 pandemic. They found intention to travel to the U.S. from the top-five international inbound
that U.S. travelers’ perceptions of China as an international destination markets in the U.S. One-way ANOVA was selected as the appropriate
were generally negative, and their travel intentions were low. Rastegar analysis tool based on the categorical nature of the independent vari­
et al. (2021) indicated that public trust in government pandemic man­ ables and continuous nature of independent variables (Hair, Black,
agement influenced international travelers’ intentions in the future. To Babin, & Anderson, 2010). Before one-way ANOVA, the normality of the
understand residents’ travel intentions after the COVID-19 pandemic, distribution of the variables (i.e., risk perceptions, perceptions of U.S.
we adopted Jordan, Bynum, Knollenberg, and Kline’s (2018) study, government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, intention to travel to
which uses multiple time horizons to measure intent to travel. Thus, we the U.S.) was tested. The study employed the skewness and kurtosis
separated behavioral intentions into three periods (within the next year, threshold to assess the data normality. The rule-of-thumb threshold used
three years, and five years) and proposed the following three to accept normality and conduct one-way ANOVA is the value between
hypotheses. − 2 and 2 (George & Mallery, 2003). The skewness and kurtosis values of
the data were between − 2 and 2 for each variable. Hence, the data met
H16. Given the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19
the assumption of data normality for conducting one-way ANOVA.
pandemic, respondents’ intentions to travel to the U.S. within the next
Post-hoc Tukey’s HSD tests were conducted to understand better pair­
year are significantly different among travelers from Canada, Mexico,
wise comparisons across respondents from the five countries (Lee, 2000;
the U.K., Japan, and China.
Qu, Li, & Chu, 2000; Sobaih & Moustafa, 2016). We chose Tukey’s HSD
H17. Given the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19 test because it controls different error rates between groups while
pandemic, respondents’ intentions to travel to the U.S. within the next allowing for groups of various sizes and is moderately conservative (Hair
three years are significantly different among travelers from Canada, et al., 2010). Next, a regression analysis was used to investigate the
Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China. relationships between predictor variables (cultural dimensions) and
outcome variables (perceptions). The regression results show which
H18. Given the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19
cultural dimensions could significantly explain travelers’ perceptions of
pandemic, respondents’ intentions to travel to the U.S. within the next
travel risk, government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and
five years are significantly different among travelers from Canada,
intention to travel to the U.S.
Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China.

4. Results
3. Method
4.1. The demographic results
3.1. Data collection
Sample demographics can be found in Table 1. Travelers from Can­
Data were collected through an online panel study that began on
ada, China, Japan, and the U.K. are primarily male, while travelers from
June 10, 2020, and was completed by June 15, 2020, as the pandemic
Mexico are predominantly female. More than half of Canadian, Chinese,
was at one of its peaks of the first wave, with 136,000 new cases globally
and British travelers were between 28 and 47 years old. Most Japanese
and 17,848 new possibilities in the U.S. (WHO, 2020). The panel was
travelers were between 28 and 57 years old, while most Mexican trav­
purchased and provided by Qualtrics and followed the rigor of other
elers were 18 and 37. Most travelers from these five countries have
similar studies to recently use panel data (Boley, Jordan, et al., 2023;
completed 4-year college or university.
Boley & Jordan, 2023; Boley, Woosnam, & Jordan, 2023). A total of
1653 survey responses were collected from each of the top 5 inbound
4.2. The ANOVA results and hypotheses testing
travel markets to the United States (U.S.) - Canada (n = 316), China (n =
320), Japan (n = 320), Mexico (n = 349), and the United Kingdom (n =
The ANOVA results revealed that all perception items (travel risk,
348). Respondents were required to have traveled internationally within
government response to the pandemic, and travel intention to the U.S.)
the last two years and have an annual household income greater than
significantly differed among travelers from these five countries, con­
USD 50,000 to ensure the sample reflected an international market of
firming that all 18 hypotheses were supported (Tables 2 and 3). How­
travelers with the discretionary income necessary to travel to the U.S.
ever, Tukey’s HSD tests revealed that perceptions of some countries
(Boley & Woosnam, 2021). These selected respondents were identified
were not significantly different from one another (in considering pair­
as international travelers in this study.
wise comparisons), indicating that these countries may have similar
perceptions concerning certain items.
3.2. Survey instrument Chinese travelers perceived their residents as having a lower risk of
catching COVID-19 during the pandemic (MeanChina = 2.67, p = .000).
Questions about risk perceptions related to COVID-19 were adopted In comparison, Mexican travelers perceived their residents as having a
from Seale et al.’s (2010) study on the risk of H1N1 (swine flu). Ques­ higher risk of catching COVID-19 (MeanMexico = 3.65, p = .000). No
tions about travel-related risks during the COVID-19 pandemic were significant differences emerged between travelers from Canada, Japan,
adopted from Wilson et al.’s study (2019). Perceptions of travel-related and the U.K. regarding their perceptions of their residents capturing
feelings during the COVID-19 pandemic were adopted from Reisinger COVID-19 during the pandemic. Further, Chinese travelers perceived
and Mavondo (2005). Questions about perceptions of the governmental themselves, their friends, and their family as having a lower risk of

4
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

Table 1
Sample demographic characteristics.
Canada n = 316 China n = 320 Japan n = 320 Mexico n = 349 U.K. n = 348

Percent (%)

Gender Male 57.3 52.5 63.4 45.0 63.5

Female 42.7 47.5 36.6 54.7 36.5
Other – – – 0.3 –
Age <18 4.4 – 1.6 0.3 1.1
18–27 7.6 11.6 4.7 25.8 13.2
28–37 30.7 69.4 24.4 49.0 44.5
38–47 23.1 16.6 30.3 16.6 20.7
48–57 18.0 2.2 21.9 6.9 11.8
>57 16.1 0.3 17.2 1.4 8.6
Highest level of education Less than high school 0.3 – 1.6 0.6 0.6
High school or GED 4.7 0.3 13.1 3.2 5.7
Technical, vocational or trade school 4.7 – 5.3 1.7 4.3
Some college 7.3 – 3.8 5.7 6.3
Associate degree 5.4 2.8 0.9 0.3 9.5
4-year college/university 45.6 73.1 69.1 67.3 32.8
Master’s degree 21.8 19.4 4.7 17.5 26.7
Ph.D./professional degree 4.4 4.4 1.6 3.7 14.1

catching COVID-19(MeanChina = 2.19, 2.29, p = .000). Travelers from Japanese travelers had significantly different opinions and the
the other four countries have relatively similar perceptions of them­ lowest mean score on the perception (Mean = 2.26, p = .000) and safety
selves, their friends, and their families catching COVID-19 during the of choosing the U.S. as a travel destination (Mean = 2.12, p = .000). In
pandemic. contrast, Mexican and British travelers had similar and relatively neutral
Chinese travelers considered the risks of COVID-19 seriously perceptions of choosing the U.S. as a travel destination (MeanMexico =
affecting their health as greater compared to travelers from other 2.95, MeanU.K. = 2.92). In addition, Mexican and British travelers had
countries (MeanChina = 4.10, p = .000). In contrast, Canadian, Mexican, similar perceptions and higher scores regarding the safety of the U.S. as a
and British travelers had similar perceptions that COVID-19 would travel destination (MeanMexico = 3.04, MeanU.K. = 2.95). Canadian and
moderately affect their health (MeanCanada = 3.46, MeanMexico = 3.34, Chinese travelers had similar perceptions of the safety of the U.S. as a
MeanU.K. = 3.41). Further, Chinese travelers considered the COVID-19 travel destination (MeanCanada = 2.54, MeanChina = 2.44).
pandemic more within their control, whereas Japanese travelers Regarding traveling to the U.S. next year, Japanese travelers re­
thought the outbreak was out of control (MeanChina = 2.64, MeanJapan = ported that the U.S. government’s pandemic response negatively
3.35, p = .000). Mexican travelers felt that the current COVID-19 situ­ affected their choices to travel (MeanJapan = 2.03, p = .000). Mexican
ation is more serious, whereas Chinese and Japanese travelers felt the and British travelers had higher scores on the likelihood of traveling to
problem is less severe (MeanMexico = 4.43, MeanChina = 3.83, MeanJapan the U.S. (MeanMexico = 3.32, MeanU.K. = 3.05, p = .000). No significant
= 3.95, p = .000). Further, Japanese travelers more firmly believed differences emerged between travelers from Canada and China
people would still be catching COVID-19 six months after data collection regarding their intentions to travel to the U.S next year. Further,
compared to travelers from other countries (MeanJapan = 4.32, p = Mexican travelers had significantly higher intentions to travel to the U.S.
.000). Yet, the other four countries had similar perceptions and slightly within the next three years, while Japanese travelers had considerably
lower mean scores for the item. lower intentions to travel (MeanMexico = 3.71, MeanJapan = 2.43, p =
Japanese travelers were much more worried about international .000). No significant differences between Chinese, Canadian, and British
travel than the other four countries (MeanJapan = 4.45, p = .000). Also, travelers were found in their preferences to travel to the U.S. within the
Japanese travelers were much tenser about traveling during the next three years. Lastly, travelers from these five countries had signifi­
pandemic, whereas Canadian and British travelers felt more relaxed cantly different perceptions of traveling to the U.S. within the next five
than other countries (MeanJapan = 4.16, MeanCanada = 3.34, MeanU.K. = years. Mexican travelers were more likely to travel, yet Japanese trav­
3.33, p = .000). Likewise, Japanese travelers felt more stressed about elers had significantly lower travel intentions (MeanMexico = 3.84,
international travel, yet Mexican and British travelers felt more MeanJapan = 2.74, p = .000).
composed about traveling during the pandemic (MeanJapan = 4.14,
MeanMexico = 3.40, MeanU.K. = 3.25, p = .000).
Japanese travelers also had a significantly higher mean score than 4.3. The regression results
the other four countries regarding the risk of catching COVID-19
through international travel, while British travelers felt less risk about The regression results (Table 4) show the causal relationships be­
catching the disease from international travel (MeanJapan = 4.43, MeanU. tween cultural dimensions and perceptions of travel risk, government
response to the pandemic, and travel intentions to the U.S. First, long-
K. = 3.91, p = .000). We found no significant differences between Ca­
nadian and Chinese travelers regarding their perceptions of catching term orientation (β = 0.282, p < .01) and indulgence (β = 0.500, p <
COVID-19 from international travel. Moreover, Japanese travelers .01) positively and significantly predicted travelers’ perceptions of their
thought people would likely catch COVID-19 when traveling interna­ residents catching COVID-19. Individualism (β = 0.163, p < .01; β =
tionally. In contrast, Canadian and British travelers felt that people are 0.142, p < .01) and uncertainty avoidance (β = 0.173, p < .01; β =
less likely to catch COVID-19 when traveling internationally (MeanJapan 0.139, p < .01) significantly explained travelers’ perceptions of them­
= 3.95, MeanCanada = 3.39, MeanU.K. = 3.31, p = .000). In addition, selves and their friends and family catching the disease. Next, individ­
Japanese and Mexican travelers had deeper concerns about infecting ualism (β = − 0.087, p < .01) and indulgence (β = − 0.227, p < .05)
friends/family when returning from an international trip compared to negatively influenced travelers’ perception of COVID-19, affecting their
travelers from Canada, China, and the U.K. who showed similar concern health. All four cultural dimensions positively explained travelers’
about infecting friends/family after traveling internationally (MeanJapan perception of the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. Travelers from a
= 4.24, MeanMexico = 4.37, p = .000). more long-term oriented (β = 0.198, p < .05) and indulgent (β = 0.412,
p < .01) country have a positive and significant impact on travelers’

5
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

Table 2
Differences of perceptions on travel risks, governments’ response to the pandemic, and intentions to travel to the U.S.
Category Question Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean F p-
(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) value
Canada n China n Japan n Mexico n U.K. n =
= 316 = 320 = 320 = 349 348

Risk of perception of catching COVID-19 What level of risk do you think the following 3.08B* 2.67C 3.23B 3.65A 3.25B 36.809 .000
(1 = Very low risk, 5 = Very high risk) groups of people have of catching COVID-19 (1.103) (1.098) (1.030) (0.934) (1.130)
during this pandemic?
Average resident
You 2.87A 2.19B 2.95A 2.89A 2.85A 24.335 .000
(1.127) (1.091) (1.172) (1.072) (1.137)
Your friends and family 2.97A 2.29B 2.99A 3.08A 2.99A 27.209 .000
(1.147) (1.125) (1.103) (1.082) (1.113)
Perceptions of the COVID-19 Pandemic If you were infected with COVID-19, how 3.46C 4.10A 3.82B 3.34C 3.41C 30.095 .000
and health (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = seriously do you think it would affect your (1.152) (0.958) (1.022) (1.125) (1.069)
Strongly agree) health?
I think that whether I get COVID-19 or not is 2.92B 2.64C 3.35A 3.01B 3.16AB 15.961 .000
out of my control. (1.265) (1.139) (1.095) (1.212) (1.242)
I think the current COVID-19 situation is 4.03BC 3.83C 3.95C 4.43A 4.19B 17.666 .000
serious. (1.093) (0.995) (1.040) (0.925) (1.020)
In my opinion, people are still going to be 4.11B 3.99B 4.32A 4.11B 4.00B 6.904 .000
catching COVID-19 six months from now. (0.974) (0.866) (0.795) (0.924) (1.009)
Feelings and perceptions towards When you think about international travel 3.58B 3.68B 4.45A 3.67B 3.46B 31.731 .000
international travel (1 = Calm/ right now, how do you feel? (1.411) (1.348) (0.825) (1.254) (1.324)
Relaxed/Composed, 5 = Worried/ Calm-Worried
Tense/Stressed) Relaxed-Tense 3.34C 3.60B 4.16A 3.41BC 3.33C 28.775 .000
(1.276) (1.253) (0.933) (1.182) (1.196)
Composed-Stressed 3.43BC 3.66B 4.14A 3.40C 3.25C 28.676 .000
(1.314) (1.205) (0.900) (1.172) (1.244)
How risky is international travel now in terms 3.99BC 4.10BC 4.43A 4.13B 3.91C 14.125 .000
of contracting COVID-19 (1.082) (0.882) (0.772) (0.929) (1.013)
If you travel internationally within the next 12 3.39C 3.60B 3.95A 3.42BC 3.31C 22.168 .000
months, how likely is it that you would catch (1.074) (0.911) (0.878) (0.975) (1.017)
COVID-19?
How concerned are you about infecting a 3.68B 3.68B 4.24A 4.37A 3.85B 30.039 .000
friend or family member with COVID-19 when (1.293) (1.064) (0.955) (0.896) (1.102)
returning from an international trip?
Perceptions of the U.S. government’s Has the government’s response to the current 2.56B 2.52BC 2.26C 2.95A 2.92A 17.162 .000
response to the COVID-19 pandemic (1 COVID-19 pandemic positively or negatively (1.384) (1.286) (1.142) (1.241) (1.306)
= Very negatively, 5 = Very positively) affected … Your perceptions of the U.S. as a
travel destination.
Your perceptions of the safety of the U.S. as a 2.54B 2.44B 2.12C 3.04A 2.95A 29.419 .000
travel destination. (1.369) (1.285) (1.123) (1.302) (1.278)
The U.S. Government Response to the Has the government’s response to the current 2.74B 2.65B 2.03C 3.32A 3.05A 47.916 .000
COVID-19 pandemic and intention to COVID-19 pandemic positively or negatively (1.367) (1.260) (1.137) (1.275) (1.290)
travel to the U.S. (1 = Very negatively, affected the likelihood that you will travel to
5 = Very positively) the U.S. within …
… the next year.
… the next 3 years. 3.18B 3.30B 2.43C 3.71A 3.41B 58.022 .000
(1.253) (1.147) (1.063) (1.134) (1.079)
… the next 5 years. 3.31B 3.64AB 2.74C 3.84A 3.51BC 46.145 .000
(1.252) (1.128) (1.031) (1.095) (1.067)

Note: *Tukey’s HSD test: means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level.

perceptions of the current COVID-19 situation. Uncertainty avoidance uncertainty avoidance negatively impacted future travelers’ intentions
(β = 0.170, p < .01) positively predicted travelers’ perceptions that to travel to the U.S., as indulgence positively impacted travelers’ pref­
people would still catch COVID-19 after six months. erences to travel to the U.S. in the future.
Uncertainty avoidance positively and significantly described trav­
elers’ feelings and perceptions toward international travel during the 5. Discussion
pandemic. That is, travelers who had higher uncertainty avoidance felt
more worried, tense, stressed, and risky about traveling internationally The study’s objectives aimed to investigate the differences among
during the pandemic (β = 0.264, p < .01; β = 0.195, p < .01; β = 0.233, p international travelers from the top-five international inbound travel
< .01; β = 0.170, p < .01). In addition, uncertainty avoidance (β = markets to the U.S. regarding perceptions of travel risks, governmental
0.094, p < .05), long-term orientation (β = 0.367, p < .01), and indul­ response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and intentions to travel to the U.S.
gence (β = 0.461, p < .01) positively indicated travelers’ concern about All hypotheses were supported, showing that different cultural back­
infecting friends or family members with COVID-19 when traveling grounds/countries had significantly different perceptions on travel risk,
internationally. governmental responses, and international travel intentions. The
Given the government’s response to the pandemic, individualism following discusses how these countries perceived travel risks, govern­
and uncertainty avoidance negatively influenced travelers’ perceptions mental responses, and intentions to travel to the U.S.
of the U.S. and its safety as a travel destination. Long-term orientation
and indulgence positively influenced travelers’ perceptions of the U.S.
and its safety as a travel destination. Lastly, individualism and

6
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

Table 3 Japan saw minimal extensive transmission of COVID-19 among its

Results of hypotheses testing. population in June 2020.
Categories Items Hypotheses Mexican travelers had higher risk perceptions of catching COVID-19
testing and considered the current COVID-19 situation serious. Further, they
Risk of perception of catching Residents in my country H1: were highly concerned about infecting friends or family members with
COVID-19 have COVID-19. Supported COVID-19 when returning from an international trip if they were to take
I have COVID-19. H2: one. Even though Mexican travelers were highly worried about infecting
Supported others, Mexico, a short-term-oriented country, lacked action in response
My friends and family have H3:
COVID-19. Supported
to the pandemic. Hence, Mexico has poor problem-solving skills in
Perceptions of the Catching COVID-19 would H4: dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic.
COVID-19 pandemic and health affect my health. Supported British and Canadian travelers had similar perceptions of catching
The COVID-19 pandemic is H5: COVID-19 and felt less worried, tense, and stressed than Japanese
out of my control. Supported
travelers. Further, they thought they were less likely to catch COVID-19
The current situation is H6:
serious. Supported and were less concerned about infecting their friends and family when
People are still going to be H7: traveling internationally. This aligned with their individualistic nature,
catching COVID-19. Supported as Canadian and British travelers opposed many restrictions regarding
Feelings and perceptions towards Calm-Worried H8: individual freedoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, the U.K.
international travel Supported
Relaxed-Tense H9:
and Canada both have lower degrees of uncertainty avoidance, which
Supported means international travelers of the U.K. and Canada feel less anxious
Composed-Stressed H10: about the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not think the disease would
Supported affect their health.
The risk of international H11:
travel Supported
Catching COVID-19 when H12: 5.2. Perceptions of the U.S. Governmental response to the pandemic
travel internationally Supported
Infecting friends or family H13: Our findings indicated that Japanese travelers negatively perceived
after traveling Supported the U.S. as a safe destination. This ties back to the general fear experi­
internationally
Perception of the U.S. government’s The U.S. as a travel H14:
enced by Japanese travelers in response to traveling internationally,
response to the COVID-19 destination. Supported given the travel bans implemented by the country (Linka et al., 2020).
pandemic The safety of the U.S. as a H15: Japan’s collectivist nature during the pandemic conflicted with the
travel destination. Supported individualistic tendencies of the U.S. Further, Japan is a long-term ori­
The U.S. government response to Travel to the U.S. within H16:
ented and restrained country with the highest degree of uncertainty
the COVID-19 pandemic and next year. Supported
intention to travel to the U.S. Travel to the U.S. within 3 H17: avoidance (Litvin et al., 2004). Japanese travelers tended to avoid
years. Supported traveling to the U.S. and felt it was risky to choose the U.S. as a desti­
Travel to the U.S. within 5 H18: nation. This corresponded with Money and Crotts’ (2003) study that
years. Supported Japanese travelers engage in more uncertainty-reducing behaviors.
Canadian and Chinese travelers felt somewhat less pessimistic about
5.1. Perceptions of COVID-19 travel risk perceptions of choosing the U.S. as a travel destination in response to the
U.S. government’s response to the pandemic. Canada and China had a
Our findings indicated that Chinese travelers had the lowest risk relatively lower degree of uncertainty avoidance, with lower safety
perceptions of catching COVID-19 and did not consider the pandemic as perceptions of the U.S. as a travel destination. As Reisinger and
severe as the other four countries. Given the lowest degree of uncer­ Mavondo (2006) mentioned, Canadian and Chinese travelers were less
tainty avoidance, China was seriously influenced by the COVID-19 dis­ concerned about risk and safety issues during the trip. Hence, Canadian
ease at the beginning of the pandemic. It also made Chinese travelers and Chinese travelers may tend to consider the U.S. as a travel
consider that the COVID-19 pandemic was not as severe and feel less destination.
risky and less concerned about international travel during the pandemic. Mexican and British travelers’ perceptions of the U.S. as a travel
However, as the pandemic was getting worse, the Chinese government, destination were least affected by the government’s response to the
which was a collectivist and long-term-oriented society, immediately COVID-19 pandemic. Mexico and the U.K. have the highest indulgence;
adapted to the crisis and implemented extensive lockdowns and strict people are less controlled by the government and are willing to pursue
preventive measures (e.g., mask-wearing in public spaces, temperature freedom. While Mexican travelers were more optimistic regarding the
checks, and personal health code system) which in turn, helped to pandemic, their risk and safety perceptions may be lower than in other
control the spread of the pandemic. As a result, Chinese travelers did not countries (Zhang, Li, & Wu, 2019). Also, British travelers emphasized
consider their residents, themselves, and their friends and family to the freedom of individuals to make their own decisions and were not
catch COVID-19 and thought the COVID-19 situation was under control; affected by others (Xu, Morgan, & Song, 2009).
however, their ability to travel internationally was significantly limited
based on governmental controls. 5.3. Intentions to travel to the U.S
In contrast, Japanese travelers had the highest perceived risk of
traveling internationally during the COVID-19 pandemic. They felt Lastly, our findings indicated that Japanese travelers’ intentions to
worried, tense, and stressed about international travel compared to travel to the U.S. were most impacted by the U.S. government’s response
other cultures and thought it was risky. The high perception of travel to the pandemic, aligning with their high-risk perceptions of traveling to
risk and hesitancy aligns with the Japanese culture’s high uncertainty the U.S. in the future. Japan is a restrained and long-term-oriented
avoidance, making them feel more anxious, stressed, and dangerous country with the highest degree of uncertainty avoidance. Hence, Jap­
about international travel during the pandemic. Also, the Japanese anese travelers were more conservative about the uncertain and un­
government emphasized problem-solving and implemented global known situations regarding the pandemic (Litvin et al., 2004). They
travel bans and general social distancing at the earliest stage of the were more future-oriented, which aligns with the fact that they were not
pandemic (Linka, Peirlinck, Sahli Costabal, & Kuhl, 2020). Therefore, willing to travel to the U.S. within the next five years.
On the other hand, Mexican and British travelers reported being

7
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

Table 4
Regression results.
Category Question beta

Individualism/ Uncertainty Long-term Indulgence/

Collectivism avoidance orientation Restraint

Risk of perception of catching COVID-19 (1 = What level of risk do you think the following groups .003 .054 .282*** .500***
Very low risk, 5 = Very high risk) of people have of catching COVID-19 during this
pandemic?
Average resident
You .163*** .173*** .028 .084
Your friends and family .142*** .139*** .067 .175
Perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic and If you were infected with COVID-19, how seriously − .087*** − .004 − .004 − .227**
health (1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly do you think it would affect your health?
agree) I think that whether I get COVID-19 or not is out of .132*** .097** .323*** .289**
my control.
I think the current COVID-19 situation is serious. − .042 − .059 .198** .412***
In my opinion, people are still going to be catching .053 .170*** − .081 − .152
COVID-19 six months from now.
Feelings and perceptions towards international When you think about international travel right now, .050 .264*** .056 − .152
travel (1 = Calm/Relaxed/Composed, 5 = how do you feel?
Worried/Tense/Stressed) Calm-Worried
Relaxed-Tense .029 .195*** .149 − .073
Composed-Stressed .022 .233*** − .046 − .282**
How risky is international travel now in terms of − .014 .170*** .023 − .090
contracting COVID-19?
If you travel internationally within the next 12 .008 .183*** .040 − .162
months, how likely is it that you would catch COVID-
19?
How concerned are you about infecting a friend or − .073** .094** .367*** .461***
family member with COVID-19 when returning from
an international trip?
Perceptions of the U.S. government’s response Has the government’s response to the current − .066** − .208*** .292** .512***
to the COVID-19 pandemic (1 = Very COVID-19 pandemic positively or negatively
negatively, 5 = Very positively) affected … Your perceptions of the U.S. as a travel
destination.
Your perceptions of the safety of the U.S. as a travel − .087** − .248*** .325** .615***
destination.
The U.S. Government Response to the COVID- Has the government’s response to the current − .149*** − .290*** .183 .549***
19 pandemic and intention to travel to the U. COVID-19 pandemic positively or negatively
S. (1 = Very negatively, 5 = Very positively) affected the likelihood that you will travel to the U.S.
within …
… the next year.
… the next 3 years. − .220*** − .348*** .110 .484***
… the next 5 years. − .255*** − .333*** .107 .417***

Note: ***<0.01, **<0.05.

more likely to travel to the U.S. based on the government’s response to 6. Conclusion
the pandemic. Mexican travelers were more willing to enjoy life and
have fun with the highest degree of indulgence than travelers from other With international travel making up a significant portion of many
countries (Huang & Crotts, 2019). Also, because of close proximity and countries’ GDP, this paper sought to examine the differences among
more friends/family in the U.S., Mexican travelers were most likely to international travelers from the top-five international inbound travel
travel to the U.S. after the pandemic. markets to the U.S. regarding perceptions of travel risks, governmental
British travelers were also more indulgent and individualistic, so response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and intentions to travel to the U.S.
they were motivated by individual pleasure and were more concerned Our findings indicated that the perceptions of travel risks, U.S. gov­
about having fun (Xu et al., 2009). While Mexican and British travelers ernment response to the pandemic, and intentions to travel to the U.S.
valued their leisure time and relaxation, they were likely and willing to among travelers from these five countries were significantly different,
travel to the U.S. shortly. providing credence to Hofstede’s dimensions and the influence of cul­
Chinese and Canadian travelers also had similar perceptions of ture over perceptions of travel-related risks.
traveling to the U.S. based on the governmental response to the We also described how these five countries reacted differently to the
pandemic. They were less likely to travel to the U.S. in the next year but travel risks, governmental responses, and their intentions to travel to the
more likely during the next three- and five-year time horizons. This is U.S. Japan, known for its long-term and restrained characteristics, held a
unsurprising given that China is a restrained and long-term-oriented negative perception of travel risks and the responses of the U.S. gov­
country. As for Canada, the government had a slightly higher individ­ ernment. Thus, Japanese residents with high uncertainty avoidance
ualism and indulgence score and was geographically close to the U.S., were unlikely to consider immediate international travel to the U.S.
influencing their intention to visit (Reisinger & Mavondo, 2006). China, a collectivist and long-term-oriented country, fostered a conser­
Interestingly, this study also found that these five countries significantly vative attitude among its residents regarding travel risks and the U.S.
differed in the likelihood of traveling to the U.S. within the next five governmental responses. Hence, Chinese residents with lower uncer­
years. These five countries had substantially different cultural back­ tainty avoidance were more inclined to resume international travel
grounds regarding their likelihood of traveling to the U.S. in the future within three years post-pandemic. Canada, characterized by a lower
and more distant time horizons. degree of uncertainty avoidance, infused less seriousness and less worry
among its citizens concerning travel risks. Their individualistic features

8
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

also prevented them from significant impacts of U.S. governmental re­ pandemic well. Hence, government responses have become important
sponses, and they were more willing to travel internationally. British in the tourism and travel context, influencing their perceptions of such
and Mexican residents exhibited indulgence and a lower degree of un­ travel destinations and intentions to travel to such destinations. This
certainty avoidance. They perceived minimal risk and concern related to study suggests that during crises, governments must consider including
the pandemic, remaining largely unaffected by U.S. governmental re­ decisions on the priority given to health, the economy, the cost of
sponses. Thus, regardless of the pandemic’s circumstances, they implementing recovery strategies, and the role assigned to experts
expressed a high willingness to travel to the U.S. or internationally. (Prideaux, Thompson, & Pabel, 2020).
Based on the conclusions from this study, we provide the following Further, DMOs are crucial in responding to health crises and
theoretical contributions to the existing crisis management literature rebuilding international tourism. To effectively follow the government’s
and practical implications for tourism marketers to rebuild international advice and work together to address health crises, DMOs can adopt
travel after the pandemic. several key strategies. For example, DMOs must stay up-to-date with the
latest government advice, regulations, and guidelines related to health
6.1. Theoretical contributions crises. DMOs should also collaborate closely with government agencies
to align their efforts with public health priorities and develop best
This paper provided significant theoretical insights into under­ practices for health and safety in the tourism sector. While dealing with
standing the cultural differences in perceptions of travel risks, govern­ future health crises, DMOs can focus on long-term sustainability and
ment response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and travel intentions to the resilience planning, including diversifying tourism offerings, investing
U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic. We adopted Hofstede’s cultural in infrastructure, and promoting responsible tourism practices. More­
model as a theoretical background to explain and compare cultural over, DMOs can encourage local businesses to adapt and innovate in
differences between Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, and the UK. The response to the changing tourism landscape, such as virtual experiences,
results revealed that countries with different cultural backgrounds had contactless services, or other innovations that enhance safety. Last,
different perceptions of travel risk, government response to the COVID- DMOs can develop a recovery plan for rebuilding tourism, including
19 pandemic, and travel intentions. As noted in the literature review, incentives and initiatives to attract tourists back to the destination. In
previous studies have discussed cross-cultural comparisons of tourists’ sum, DMOs can rebuild international tourism after health crises by
behavior and satisfaction based on Hofstede’s cultural model (Huang & collaborating closely with government agencies, having robust recovery
Crotts, 2019; Jia, 2020; Meng, 2010; Ng et al., 2007). However, cultural plans, educating stakeholders, and focusing on sustainability and resil­
differences in perceptions of international travel risks, government ience. These efforts can help restore confidence in international tourism
response to health crises, and travel intention during health crises have and prioritize the safety and well-being of tourists and local
been previously unexplored. communities.
Our findings indicated that the cultural dimensions of individualism This study also discovered that international travelers from some
vs. collectivism, uncertainty avoidance, long-term vs. short-term orien­ countries (i.e., Japan) are more concerned about travel risks and gov­
tation, and indulgence vs. restraint could explain international travelers’ ernment response to the pandemic. In contrast, international travelers
perceptions of international travel risks, government response to health from some countries (i.e., Mexico) are less concerned about travel risks
crises, and travel intention during the health crisis. For instance, Japan during the pandemic. Hence, this study provides implications for the U.
is a long-term-oriented country with high uncertainty avoidance. When S. and other destinations trying to rebuild international tourism after
Japanese travelers faced severe health crises, they felt more anxious, global health crises like COVID-19. Our results imply that tourism
stressed, and risky about international travel. In contrast, Mexico is managers must adopt different marketing strategies depending on a
considered an indulgent country, which means Mexican travelers had target market’s cultural characteristics. These cultural characteristics
higher intentions and a greater willingness to travel to the U.S. during will likely influence travel risk perceptions and governmental responses
the pandemic. Further, this study discovers that the U.S. government’s to the pandemic. While each country has varying perceptions of travel
response to the COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected travelers’ risk, government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and travel in­
perception of the U.S. as a travel destination. While each country has tentions during the pandemic, tourism decision-makers can use our
different cultural backgrounds, travelers’ attitudes toward government findings to strategically decide which international target market to go
response differ. For instance, the U.K. is an individualistic country with a after first and which target markets to pull marketing dollars from since
higher score for indulgence. British travelers were less negatively they are unlikely to come back online shortly. For example, suppose the
affected by the government response as they had higher perceptions of U.S. wants to rebuild its international tourism industry. In that case, it
the U.S. as a travel destination during the COVID-19 pandemic. In sum, makes sense to start with individualistic countries like the U.K. and
this study theoretically contributed to the existing tourism literature by Canada and indulgent countries like Mexico because they were generally
offering cultural perspectives to understand and predict the perceptions less concerned about COVID-19 and more willing to travel to the U.S.
of travel risks, government response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the shortly. The U.S. and other destinations wanting to use their tourism
intention to travel during the COVID-19 pandemic, which could explain marketing dollars efficiently may wish to pull marketing dollars during
how international travelers from various countries respond to future the pandemic from collectivist countries like China and countries with
health crises. high uncertainty avoidance like Japan because it is unlikely to travel
internationally shortly. Specific strategies should be developed for these
6.2. Practical implications markets at the right to bring them back online with messages of safety
once public health crises like COVID-19 begin to wane.
This study showed that the U.S. government’s response to the
pandemic significantly influenced Canadian, Mexican, British, Japanese, 6.3. Limitations and future research
and Chinese travelers’ perceptions of the U.S. as a travel destination and
their willingness to travel to the U.S. in the future. Tanya Lewis (2021), a This study has some limitations that future research can build upon.
senior editor at Scientific American, suggests that the U.S. government First, it focused only on the top-five inbound markets to the U.S. Future
poorly responded to the COVID-19 virus at the early stage of the research should seek to include emerging markets and their perceptions
pandemic. Thus, any mistakes and inattentive policy choices likely of the U.S. and travel-related risks, as well as include countries with
resulted in travelers from Canada, Mexico, the U.K., Japan, and China varying political responses to COVID-19, or that had different levels of
being more concerned about traveling to the U.S. during the outbreak COVID-19 cases to see how these differences influence travel-related
than if they perceived the government to handle the COVID-19 risks and intention to visit. Second, data were collected at one point of

9
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

time in June 2020 when the COVID-19 pandemic was raging. It is sug­ Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online
Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014.
gested that a follow-up study could investigate international travelers’
Article 1.
perceptions of travel risk, government responses in dealing with COVID- Huang, S. S., & Crotts, J. (2019). Relationships between Hofstede’s cultural dimensions
19, and intentions to travel internationally following the peak of the and tourist satisfaction: A cross-country cross-sample examination. Tourism
COVID-19 pandemic. It would be interesting to see how the peaks and Management, 72, 232–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.001
Huang, S. S., Shao, Y., Zeng, Y., Liu, X., & Li, Z. (2021). Impacts of COVID-19 on Chinese
valleys of infections influence perceptions of travel-related risks. Third, nationals’ tourism preferences. Tourism Management Perspectives, 40, Article 100895.
this study discusses the U.S. government’s response to the COVID-19 Jia, S. S. (2020). Motivation and satisfaction of Chinese and us tourists in restaurants: A
pandemic that significantly affected Canadian, Mexican, British, Japa­ cross-cultural text mining of online reviews. Tourism Management, 78, Article
104071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.104071
nese, and Chinese travelers’ intentions to travel to the U.S. Future Jordan, E. J., Bynum Boley, B., Knollenberg, W., & Kline, C. (2018). Predictors of
research should investigate how other governmental responses from intention to travel to Cuba across three time horizons: An application of the theory of
different countries affect international travelers with different cultural planned behavior. Journal of Travel Research, 57(7), 981–993. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0047287517721370
backgrounds than the ones we examined. It would be particularly Kang, M., & Moscardo, G. (2006). Exploring cross-cultural differences in attitudes
interesting to look at the U.S. travel market and see how other countries’ towards responsible tourist behaviour: A comparison of Korean, British and
COVID-19 politics influence U.S. travelers’ demand for travel. These Australian tourists. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 11(4), 303–320. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10941660600931143
considerations will contribute to a more comprehensive understanding Lee, C. K. (2000). A comparative study of caucasian and asian visitors to a cultural expo
of rebuilding international travel in the post-pandemic era. in an asian setting. Tourism Management, 21(2), 169–176.
Lewis, T. (2021). How the U.S. pandemic response went wrong and what went right during a
year of COVID. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/h
CRediT authorship contribution statement
ow-the-u-s-pandemic-response-went-wrong-and-what-went-right-during-a-year-of-c
ovid/.
Ting-Yen (Tim) Huang: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Linka, K., Peirlinck, M., Sahli Costabal, F., & Kuhl, E. (2020). Outbreak dynamics of
COVID-19 in Europe and the effect of travel restrictions. Computer Methods in
Formal analysis. Evan J. Jordan: Writing – review & editing, Supervi­
Biomechanics and Biomedical Engineering, 23(11), 710–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/
sion, Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization. B. Bynum Boley: 10255842.2020.1759560
Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Resources, Methodology, Litvin, S. W., Crotts, J. C., & Hefner, F. L. (2004). Cross-cultural tourist behaviour: A
Conceptualization. Kyle Maurice Woosnam: Writing – review & edit­ replication and extension involving Hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimension.
International Journal of Tourism Research, 6(1), 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/
ing, Resources, Methodology, Conceptualization. Xiao Xiao: Method­ jtr.468
ology, Conceptualization. Naho Maruyama: Methodology, Lu, Q., & Atadil, H. A. (2021). Do you dare to travel to China? An examination of China’s
Conceptualization. Camila Rojas: Methodology, Conceptualization. destination image amid the COVID-19. Tourism Management Perspectives, 40, Article
100881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmp.2021.100881
Manrai, L. A., & Manrai, A. (2011). Hofstede’s cultural dimensions and tourist behaviors:
Data availability A review and conceptual framework. Journal of Economics, Finance & Administrative
Science, 16(31), 23.
Massidda, C., & Mattana, P. (2013). A SVECM analysis of the relationship between
The data that has been used is confidential. international tourism arrivals, GDP and trade in Italy. Journal of Travel Research, 52
(1), 93–105.
References Mazanec, J. A., Crotts, J. C., Gursoy, D., & Lu, L. (2015). Homogeneity versus
heterogeneity of cultural values: An item-response theoretical approach applying
Hofstede’s cultural dimensions in a single nation. Tourism Management, 48, 299–304.
Abraham, V., Bremser, K., Carreno, M., Crowley-Cyr, L., & Moreno, M. (2021). Exploring
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2014.11.011
the consequences of COVID-19 on tourist behaviors: Perceived travel risk, animosity
Meng, F. (2010). Individualism/collectivism and group travel behavior: A cross-cultural
and intentions to travel. Tourism Review, 76(4), 701–717.
perspective. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(4),
Avraham, E. (2021). Recovery strategies and marketing campaigns for global
340–351. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506181011081514
destinations in response to the COVID-19 tourism crisis. Asia Pacific Journal of
Money, R. B., & Crotts, J. C. (2003). The effect of uncertainty avoidance on information
Tourism Research, 26(11), 1255–1269. https://doi.org/10.1080/
search, planning, and purchases of international travel vacations. Tourism
10941665.2021.1918192
Management, 24(2), 191–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(02)00057-2
Boley, B. B., & Jordan, E. (2023). Leveraging IPA gap scores to predict intent to travel.
Neuburger, L., & Egger, R. (2021). Travel risk perception and behaviour during the
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, 57, 97–101.
COVID-19 pandemic 2020: A case study of the DACH region. Current Issues in
Boley, B. B., Jordan, E., Woosnam, K. M., Maruyama, N., Xiao, X., & Rojas, C. (2023).
Tourism, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1803807
Buttressing social return’s influence on travel behaviour. Current Issues in Tourism, 26
Ng, S. I., Lee, J. A., & Soutar, G. N. (2007). Tourists’ intention to visit a country: The
(17), 2829–2844.
impact of cultural distance. Tourism Management, 28(6), 1497–1506. https://doi.
Boley, B. B., & Woosnam, K. M. (2021). Going global or going local? Why travelers
org/10.1016/j.tourman.2006.11.005
choose franchise and independent accommodations. Journal of Travel Research, 60
Prideaux, B., Thompson, M., & Pabel, A. (2020). Lessons from COVID-19 can prepare
(2), 354–369.
global tourism for the economic transformation needed to combat climate change.
Boley, B. B., Woosnam, K. M., & Jordan, E. (2023). Animosity, social return, and intent to
Tourism Geographies, 22(3), 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1080/
travel: Social return’s dissipating influence over animosity. Journal of Travel
14616688.2020.1762117
Research, Article 00472875231199638.
Qu, H., Li, L., & Chu, G. K. T. (2000). The comparative analysis of Hong Kong as an
Chua, B. L., Al-Ansi, A., Lee, M. J., & Han, H. (2021). Impact of health risk perception on
international conference destination in Southeast Asia. Tourism Management, 21(6),
avoidance of international travel in the wake of a pandemic. Current Issues in
643–648.
Tourism, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1829570
Rastegar, R., Seyfi, S., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2021). How COVID-19 case fatality rates
Fan, X., Lu, J., Qiu, M., & Xiao, X. (2023). Changes in travel behaviors and intentions
have shaped perceptions and travel intention? Journal of Hospitality and Tourism
during the COVID-19 pandemic and recovery period: A case study of China. Journal
Management, 47, 353–364.
of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism, 41, Article 100522.
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel anxiety and intentions to travel
Gallego, I., & Font, X. (2020). Changes in air passenger demand as a result of the COVID-
internationally: Implications of travel risk perception. Journal of Travel Research, 43
19 crisis: Using Big Data to inform tourism policy. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,
(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287504272017
1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1773476
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2006). Cultural differences in travel risk perception.
George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and
Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 20(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1300/
reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
J073v20n01_02
Gössling, S., Scott, D., & Hall, C. M. (2020). Pandemics, tourism and global change: A
Seabra, C., Dolnicar, S., Abrantes, J. L., & Kastenholz, E. (2013). Heterogeneity in risk
rapid assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 29(1), 1–20. https://
and safety perceptions of international tourists. Tourism Management, 36, 502–510.
doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2020.1758708
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2012.09.008
Gostin, L. O., & Wiley, L. F. (2020). Governmental public health powers during the
Seale, H., Heywood, A. E., McLaws, M.-L., Ward, K. F., Lowbridge, C. P., Van, D., et al.
COVID-19 pandemic: Stay-at-home orders, business closures, and travel restrictions.
(2010). Why do I need it? I am not at risk! Public perceptions towards the pandemic
JAMA, 323(21), 2137–2138.
(H1N1) 2009 vaccine. BMC Infectious Diseases, 10(1), 99. https://doi.org/10.1186/
Gyimothy, S., Braun, E., & Zenker, S. (2022). Travel-at-home: Paradoxical effects of a
1471-2334-10-99
pandemic threat on domestic tourism. Tourism Management, 93, Article 104613.
Seyfi, S., Hall, C. M., & Shabani, B. (2023). COVID-19 and international travel
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis:
restrictions: The geopolitics of health and tourism. Tourism Geographies, 1–17.
A global perspective. Prentice Hall.
Simpson, P. M., & Siguaw, J. A. (2008). Perceived travel risks: The traveller perspective
Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories.
and manageability. International Journal of Tourism Research, 10(4), 315–327.
Journal of International Business Studies, 14(2), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/
https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.664
palgrave.jibs.8490867

10
T.-Y.(T. Huang et al. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management 31 (2024) 100855

Sobaih, A. E. E., & Moustafa, M. A. (2016). Speaking the same language: The value of World Health Organization. (2020). Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) situation repot- 141.
social networking sites for hospitality and tourism higher education in Egypt. Journal https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports
of Hospitality and Tourism Education, 28(1), 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/ /20200609-covid-19-sitrep-141.pdf?sfvrsn=72fa1b16_2.
10963758.2015.1127169 Xu, F., Morgan, M., & Song, P. (2009). Students’ travel behaviour: A cross-cultural
Sönmez, S. F. (1998). Tourism, terrorism, and political instability. Annals of Tourism comparison of UK and China. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11(3),
Research, 25(2), 416–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(97)00093-5 255–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.686
Susilowati, C., Anggraeni, R., & Rohman, F. (2023). No quarantine, is it safe to travel? Yang, E., & Smith, J. W. (2023). The spatial and temporal resilience of the tourism and
International Journal of Tourism and Hospitality in Asia Pasific, 6(2), 62–74. outdoor recreation industries in the United States throughout the COVID-19
Uğur, N. G., & Akbıyık, A. (2020). Impacts of COVID-19 on global tourism industry: A pandemic. Tourism Management, 95, Article 104661.
cross-regional comparison. Tourism Management Perspectives, 36, Article 100744. Zenker, S., Braun, E., & Gyimothy, S. (2021). Too afraid to travel? Development of a
Wilson, R. S., Zwickle, A., & Walpole, H. (2019). Developing a broadly applicable pandemic (COVID-19) anxiety travel scale (PATS). Tourism Management, 84, Article
measure of risk perception. Risk Analysis, 39(4), 777–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 104286.
risa.13207 Zhang, Y., Li, X., & Wu, T. (2019). The impacts of cultural values on bilateral
international tourist flows A panel data gravity model. Current Issues in Tourism, 22
(8), 967–981. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1345870

11