Submitted:
26 November 2024
Posted:
28 November 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Food Review Vlogs
2.2. The S-O-R Model
2.2.1. Food Vlog Attributes as Stimuli: Informativeness, Vividness, and Social Interactivity
2.2.2. Food Vlogger Attributes as Stimuli: Credibility, Physical Attractiveness, and Attitude Homophily
2.2.3. Organism: Content Engagement and Para-social Relationships
2.2.4. Responses: Attitudes and Visit Intentions

3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Sample and Data Collection
3.2. Measures
3.3. Statistical Produces
4. Results
4.1. Analysis Results of Reliability and Validity
| Factors/ Items | EFA | CFA | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factor loading | Eigenvalue | Alpha | Factor loading | CR | AVE | |
| Factor 1: Informativeness (INF) | 9.89 | 0.94 | 0.94 | 0.76 | ||
| The food review vlogs provide useful information about the food. | 0.83 | 0.89 | ||||
| The food review vlogs are informative about restaurant recommendations. | 0.82 | 0.88 | ||||
| The food review vlogs provide in-depth food-related reviews. | 0.79 | 0.79 | ||||
| The food review vlogs help me discover new restaurants. | 0.90 | 0.89 | ||||
| The food review vlogs help me learn more about local cuisine, culture, and other things around reviewed food. | 0.96 | 0.91 | ||||
| Factor 2: Entertainment (ENT) | 1.41 | 0.88 | 0.87 | 0.63 | ||
| The food review vlogs are entertaining. | 0.78 | 0.75 | ||||
| The food review vlogs are exciting. | 0.68 | 0.85 | ||||
| The food review vlogs are fun to watch. | 0.68 | 0.76 | ||||
| The food review vlogs help me to pass the time when I was bored. | 0.94 | 0.82 | ||||
| Factor 3: Vividness (VIV) | 2.76 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.76 | ||
| The food review vlogs provide me with detailed videos of the restaurants. | 0.78 | 0.84 | ||||
| The food review vlogs make the food and restaurants vivid to me. | 0.92 | 0.91 | ||||
| The food review vlogs make information about the restaurants vivid to me. | 0.87 | 0.87 | ||||
| The food review vlogs help me to visualize the food and restaurants in the real world. | 0.89 | 0.87 | ||||
| Factor 4: Social interactivity (SI) | 2.64 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.70 | ||
| The food review vlogs enable me to know what others said about restaurants. | 0.77 | 0.77 | ||||
| The food review vlogs facilitate the exchange of ideas and information about food among viewers, including me. | 0.80 | 0.85 | ||||
| The food review vlogs make me feel a sense of belonging to the cuisine fan community. | 0.84 | 0.79 | ||||
| The food review vlogs enable me to connect with people who have the same interests as me. | 0.96 | 0.93 | ||||
| Factor 5: Credibility (CRE) | 3.95 | 0.72 | 0.93 | 0.71 | ||
| The food vlogger is a food review expert. | 0.77 | 0.79 | ||||
| The food vlogger is skilled. * | - | - | ||||
| The food vlogger is knowledgeable. | 0.83 | 0.82 | ||||
| The food vlogger is qualified. * | - | - | ||||
| I trust in the information provided by the food vlogger. | 0.77 | 0.77 | ||||
| Videos of the food vlogger are reliable. | 0.92 | 0.91 | ||||
| Overall, I recommend videos of the food vlogger. | 0.91 | 0.92 | ||||
| Factor 6: Physical attractiveness (PA) | 1.32 | 0.82 | 0.82 | 0.60 | ||
| The food vlogger is good-looking. | 0.63 | 0.68 | ||||
| The food vlogger is attractive physically. | 0.93 | 0.84 | ||||
| The food vlogger is sexy. | 0.74 | 0.80 | ||||
| Factor 7: Attitude homophily (AH) | 2.43 | 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.71 | ||
| The food vlogger thinks like me. | 0.79 | 0.80 | ||||
| The food vlogger shares my values. | 0.88 | 0.86 | ||||
| The food vlogger has a lot in common with me. | 0.76 | 0.77 | ||||
| The food vlogger behaves like me. | 0.94 | 0.94 | ||||
| Factor 8: Content engagement (CE) | 4.55 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.71 | ||
| I was absorbed in watching the food review vlogs. | 0.71 | 0.75 | ||||
| Watching the food review vlogs was worthwhile. | 0.89 | 0.87 | ||||
| The time I spent watching the food review vlogs just slipped away. | 0.86 | 0.85 | ||||
| I felt interested in watching the food review vlogs. | 0.85 | 0.87 | ||||
| Watching the food review vlogs was rewarding. | 0.89 | 0.87 | ||||
| Factor 9: Para-social relationship (PSR) | 3.05 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.62 | ||
| The food vlogger makes me feel comfortable, as if I am with friends | 0.69 | 0.74 | ||||
| If my favorite food vlogger appeared on another media, I would watch/ read it to know more. | 0.73 | 0.75 | ||||
| I look forward to watching the last video uploaded by my favorite food vlogger. | 0.77 | 0.76 | ||||
| I miss seeing my favorite food vlogger when he or she is not publishing videos. | 0.82 | 0.83 | ||||
| I want to meet my favorite food vlogger in person. | 0.91 | 0.86 | ||||
| Factor 10: Attitude (AT) | 2.26 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.65 | ||
| I like the restaurants reviewed in the vlogs. | 0.79 | 0.73 | ||||
| I have positive impressions of restaurants reviewed in the vlogs. | 0.88 | 0.81 | ||||
| The restaurants reviewed in the vlogs seem good. | 0.76 | 0.74 | ||||
| The restaurants reviewed in the vlogs seem pleasant. | 0.94 | 0.93 | ||||
| Factor 11: Visit intention (VI) | 1.22 | 0.85 | 0.86 | 0.66 | ||
| I intend to visit the restaurants in the upcoming days. | 0.63 | 0.75 | ||||
| I would visit the restaurants recommended in the vlogs rather than other restaurants that serve the same kind of food. | 0.86 | 0.82 | ||||
| I predict that I will visit the restaurants in the vlogs in the future. | 0.81 | 0.87 | ||||
| χ2 2/df | GFI | RMSEA | CFI | TLI |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFA 1370.12, df = 934, p < .001 1.47 | 0.85 | 0.04 | 0.96 | 0.95 |
| SEM 11592.80, df = 957, p < .001 1.66 | 0.83 | 0.05 | 0.93 | 0.93 |
4.2. Hypothesis Testing
5. Conclusions
5.1. Theoretical Implications
5.2. Practical Implications
5.3. Limitations and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Tubular Labs. The Growth of Food Content on YouTube. Published 2015. Available online: https://tubularinsights.com/growth-food-youtube-report/ (accessed on 04 March 2021).
- Delgado, J.; Johnsmeyer, B.; Balanovskiy, S. Millennials Eat Up YouTube Food Videos. Think with Google. Published 2014. Available online: https://www.thinkwithgoogle.com/marketing-strategies/video/millennials-eat-up-youtube-food-videos/ (accessed on 01 December 2021).
- Stefanski, R. How to Start a Blog Quickly and Easily to Become Your Own Boss. OneHourProfessor. Published 14 August 2023. Available online: https://onehourprofessor.com/start-blog/ (accessed on 21 August 2023).
- Kim, Y. Eating as a transgression: Multisensorial performativity in the carnal videos of mukbang (eating shows). Int. J. Cult. Stud. 2021, 24, 107–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, H.G. Understanding social media users’ mukbang content watching: Integrating TAM and ECM. Sustainability 2023, 15, 4013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, E.; Lee, J.; Kim, K.H.; Yun, Y.H. The popularity of eating broadcast: Content analysis of “mukbang” YouTube videos, media coverage, and the health impact of “mukbang” on public. Health Inform. J. 2020, 26, 2237–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anagnostopoulou, S.C.; Buhalis, D.; Kountouri, I.L.; Manousakis, E.G.; Tsekrekos, A.E. The impact of online reputation on hotel profitability. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Song, H.G.; Kim, Y.S.; Hwang, E. How attitude and para-social interaction influence purchase intentions of Mukbang users: A mixed-method study. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brewer, P. The impact of restaurant review website attributes on consumers' internal states and behavioral responses. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Briliana, V.; Ruswidiono, W.; Deitiana, T. Do millennials believe in food vlogger reviews? A study of food vlogs as a source of information. J. Mgt. Mkt. Review 2020, 5, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. An Approach to Environmental Psychology; The MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1974. [Google Scholar]
- Frobenius, M. Audience design in monologues: How vloggers involve their viewers. J. Pragmat. 2014, 72, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abd Razak, N.I.; Zulkifly, M.I. The impacts of food vlog attributes on para-social interaction and customers’ response behaviours. J. Tour. Hosp. Culin. Arts 2020, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Dedman, J.; Paul, J. Videoblogging; Wiley: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, Z.; Sun, L.; Zhu, W.; Yang, S.; Li, H.; Wu, D. Joint social and content recommendation for user-generated videos in online social network. IEEE Trans. Multimed. 2012, 15, 698–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.H.S.; Lee, T. Service quality and price perception of service: Influence on word-of-mouth and revisiting intention. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2016, 52, 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, W.; Xiong, L.; Hu, C. The effect of Facebook users’ arousal and valence on intention to go to the festival: Applying an extension of the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2012, 31, 819–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.W.; Sung, H.J.; Jeon, H.M. Determinants of continuous intention on food delivery apps: Extending UTAUT2 with information quality. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pereira, B.; Sung, B.; Lee, S. I like watching other people eat: A cross-cultural analysis of the antecedents of attitudes towards Mukbang. Australas. Mark. J. 2019, 27, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shaver, J.M. Accounting for endogeneity when assessing strategy performance: Does entry mode choice affect FDI survival? Manag. Sci. 1998, 44, 571–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benlian, A. Web personalization cues and their differential effects on user assessments of website value. J. Mgt. Inf. Syst. 2015, 32, 225–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davis, T.R.; Luthans, F. A social learning approach to organizational behavior. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1980, 5, 281–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, L.C.; Baker, J.; Wagner, J.A.; Wakefield, K. Can a retail website be social? J. Mark. 2007, 71, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peng, C.; Kim, Y.G. Application of the stimulus-organism-response (SOR) framework to online shopping behavior. J. Internet Commer. 2014, 13, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gu, R.; Oh, L.B.; Wang, K. Developing user loyalty for social networking sites: A relational perspective. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2016, 17, 1. [Google Scholar]
- Gogan, I.C.W.; Zhang, Z.; Matemba, E.D. Impacts of gratifications on consumers’ emotions and continuance use intention: An empirical study of Weibo in China. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Q.; Wells, W.D. Attitude toward the site. J. Advert. Res. 1999, 39, 27–38. [Google Scholar]
- Papacharissi, Z.; Rubin, A.M. Predictors of Internet use. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2000, 44, 175–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiang, L.; Zheng, X.; Lee, M.; Zhao, D. Exploring consumers’ impulse buying behavior on social commerce platform: The role of para-social interaction. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 333–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, S.Y. Effects of Instagram eating-out information characteristics on satisfaction and intention to use. J. Korea Hotel Resort Assoc. 2019, 18, 241–260. [Google Scholar]
- Palmgreen, P.; Wenner, L.A.; Rayburn, J.D. Relations between gratifications sought and obtained: A study of television news. Commun. Res. 1980, 7, 161–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dehghani, M.; Niaki, M.K.; Ramezani, I.; Sali, R. Evaluating the influence of YouTube advertising for attraction of young customers. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 59, 165–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.L. Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 66, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.T.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, L.L. Vlog and brand evaluations: The influence of para-social interaction. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2019, 31, 419–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chua, A.Y.; Banerjee, S. How businesses draw attention on Facebook through incentives, vividness, and interactivity. Int. J. Comput. Sci. 2015, 42, 275–281. [Google Scholar]
- Batra, R.; Ahtola, O.T. Measuring the hedonic and utilitarian sources of consumer attitudes. Mark. Lett. 1991, 2, 159–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fortin, D.R.; Dholakia, R.R. Interactivity and vividness effects on social presence and involvement with a web-based advertisement. J. Bus. Res. 2005, 58, 387–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.; Hong, I. Predicting positive user responses to social media advertising: The roles of emotional appeal, informativeness, and creativity. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2016, 36, 360–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiousis, S. Public trust or mistrust? Perceptions of media credibility in the information age. Mass Commun. Soc. 2001, 4, 381–403. [Google Scholar]
- Ohanian, R. Construction and validation of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trustworthiness, and attractiveness. J. Advert. 1990, 19, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldsmith, R.E.; Lafferty, B.A.; Newell, S.J. The impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. J. Advert. 2000, 29, 43–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batra, R.; Keller, K.L. Integrating marketing communications: New findings, new lessons, and new ideas. J. Mark. 2016, 80, 122–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokolova, K.; Perez, C. You follow fitness influencers on YouTube. But do you actually exercise? How para-social relationships, and watching fitness influencers, relate to intentions to exercise. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2021, 58, 102276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokolova, K.; Kefi, H. Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and para-social interaction influence purchase intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 101742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, J.E.; Watkins, B. YouTube vloggers' influence on consumer luxury brand perceptions and intentions. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5753–5760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruggiero, T.E. Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Commun. Soc. 2000, 3, 3–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, A.M.; Step, M.M. Impact of motivation, attraction, and para-social interaction on talk radio listening. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2000, 44, 635–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yuan, S.; Lou, C. How social media influencers foster relationships with followers: The roles of source credibility and fairness in para-social relationship and product interest. J. Interact. Advert. 2020, 20, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J.; Holbert, R.L. Assessing the predictive value of para-social relationship intensity in a political context. Commun. Res. 2018, 48, 501–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ladhari, R.; Massa, E.; Skandrani, H. YouTube vloggers’ popularity and influence: The roles of homophily, emotional attachment, and expertise. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 54, 102027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.C.; Lin, Y.C. What drives live-stream usage intention? The perspectives of flow, entertainment, social interaction, and endorsement. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, G.; Carlsson, C.; Zou, D. Exploring the influence of user-generated content factors on the behavioral intentions of travel consumers. In Proceedings of the 25th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS), Auckland, New Zealand, 8–10 December 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Jang, S.; Bai, B.; Hu, C.; Wu, C.M.E. Affect, travel motivation, and travel intention: A senior market. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2009, 33, 51–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.C.; Shang, R.A.; Li, M.J. The effects of perceived relevance of travel blogs’ content on the behavioral intention to visit a tourist destination. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2014, 30, 787–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Choe, J.Y.; Lee, S. How are food value video clips effective in promoting food tourism? Generation Y versus non–Generation Y. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2018, 35, 377–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Buhrmester, M.; Kwang, T.; Gosling, S.D. Amazon’s mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 2011, 6, 3–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aluri, A.; Slevitch, L.; Larzelere, R. The effectiveness of embedded social media on hotel websites and the importance of social interactions and return on engagement. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 27, 670–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sun, Y.; Shao, X.; Li, X.; Guo, Y.; Nie, K. How live streaming influences purchase intentions in social commerce: An IT affordance perspective. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2019, 37, 100886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chiang, H.S.; Hsiao, K.L. YouTube stickiness: The needs, personal, and environmental perspective. Internet Res. 2015, 25, 85–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flavián, C.; Ibáñez-Sánchez, S.; Orús, C. Integrating virtual reality devices into the body: Effects of technological embodiment on customer engagement and behavioral intentions toward the destination. J. Travel Tour. Mark. 2019, 36, 847–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiao, K.L.; Lu, H.P.; Lan, W.C. The influence of the components of storytelling blogs on readers’ travel intentions. Internet Res. 2013, 23, 160–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Popy, N.N.; Bappy, T.A. Attitude toward social media reviews and restaurant visit intention: A Bangladeshi perspective. South Asian J. Bus. Stud. 2020, 11, 20–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hair Jr, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis with Reading; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Francis, J.E.; White, L. PIRQUAL: A scale for measuring customer expectations and perceptions of quality in internet retailing. In Proceedings of the 2002 AMA Winter Educators' Conference: Marketing Theory and Applications, Austin, TX, USA, 22–25 February 2002; pp. 263–270. [Google Scholar]
- Savci, M.; Ercengiz, M.; Aysan, F. Turkish adaptation of the Social Media Disorder Scale in adolescents. Arch. Neuropsychiatry 2018, 55, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arviansyah, Dhaneswara, A.P.; Hidayanto, A.N.; Zhu, Y.Q. Vlogging: Trigger to impulse buying behaviors. In Proceedings of the 22nd Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Yokohama, Japan, 26–30 June 2018; pp. 249.
- Wang, W.; Chen, R.R.; Ou, C.X.; Ren, S.J. Media or message, which is the king in social commerce? An empirical study of participants' intention to repost marketing messages on social media. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 93, 176–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silaban, P.H.; Chen, W.K.; Nababan, T.S.; Eunike, I.J.; Silalahi, A.D.K. How travel vlogs on YouTube influence consumer behavior: A use and gratification perspective and customer engagement. Hum. Behav. Emerg. Technol. 2022, 1, 4432977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rasmussen, L. Parasocial interaction in the digital age: An examination of relationship building and the effectiveness of YouTube celebrities. J. Soc. Media Soc. 2018, 7, 280–294. [Google Scholar]
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | |
| Physical attractiveness | 0.78* | ||||||||||
| Informativeness | 0.09 | 0.88* | |||||||||
| Content engagement | 0.13 | 0.36 | 0.85* | ||||||||
| Credibility | 0.04 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.85* | |||||||
| Para-social relationship | 0.13 | 0.13 | 0.23 | -0.01 | 0.79* | ||||||
| Vividness | 0.24 | 0.17 | 0.24 | -0.04 | 0.28 | 0.88* | |||||
| Social interactivity | -0.15 | -0.34 | -0.21 | -0.11 | -0.05 | -0.02 | 0.84* | ||||
| Attitude homophily | 0.15 | 0.03 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.1 | 0.02 | 0.85* | |||
| Attitude | 0.41 | 0.27 | 0.4 | 0.07 | 0.29 | 0.31 | -0.01 | 0.15 | 0.81* | ||
| Entertainment | 0.23 | 0.59 | 0.41 | 0.05 | 0.24 | 0.25 | -0.48 | 0.06 | 0.32 | 0.80* | |
| Visit intention | 0.18 | 0.6 | 0.47 | -0.05 | 0.23 | 0.13 | -0.35 | 0.02 | 0.34 | 0.59 | 0.82* |
| Structural path | Std. estimate | C.R. | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| H1: Informativeness → Content engagement | 0.20** | 2.59 | Supported |
| H2a: Entertainment → Content engagement | 0.29** | 2.89 | Supported |
| H2b: Vividness → Content engagement | 0.11* | 2.15 | Supported |
| H3: Social interactivity → Content engagement | -0.04 | -0.38 | Rejected |
| H4: Credibility → Para-social relationships | -0.01 | -0.21 | Rejected |
| H5: Physical attractiveness → Para-social relationships | 0.16* | 2.06 | Supported |
| H6: Attitude homophily → Para-social relationships | 0.13* | 1.98 | Supported |
| H7: Para-social relationships → Content engagement | 0.10* | 2.22 | Supported |
| H8: Content engagement → Attitudes | 0.42*** | 6.42 | Supported |
| H9: Para-social relationships → Attitudes | 0.19*** | 3.64 | Supported |
| H10: Attitudes → Visit intentions | 0.24*** | 5.58 | Supported |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
