Intention to revisit is a critical indicator of destination loyalty and sustainability (Satar et al., 2023). It refers to the probability of tourists’ willingness to return to a destination (Luo et al., 2021), and is a construct that gauges their likelihood of engaging in repeated or similar travel experiences at the same site (Cham et al., 2022). Keeping repeat visitors is economically vital, as they usually contribute more to local economies than first-time tourists (Hamdy et al., 2024a). Moreover, safety is a key factor in destination choice, directly affecting attractiveness and competitiveness (Ivanov et al., 2022). However, the widespread issue of tourist harassment threatens this sense of security. Tourist harassment is behavior that frightens, annoys, or traumatizes travelers at destinations (Nicely & Mohd, 2014). It covers six core forms: begging, persistent vendor pestering, physical/verbal harassment, financial fraud, and sexual harassment (Hamdy et al., 2024b). Reported globally, harassment often targets tourists because of their perceived vulnerability, and it negatively impacts their on-site experience (Tan & Li, 2023), limits tourism activities, reduces satisfaction, and potentially prevents future visits (Alrawadieh et al., 2019). Despite the significant impact of harassment on destination reputation and tourist behavior, its specific effect on intention to revisit remains underexplored in academic research (Hajra & Nag, 2023). This study aimed to fill this gap by empirically examining the relationship between tourist harassment and travelers’ intent to revisit a destination.

 

This study used the stimulus–organism–response framework to develop a model showing how tourist harassment affects tourists’ intention to revisit. The model described tourist harassment as the main environmental stimulus, activating internal psychological processes. Destination image, referring to an individual’s overall evaluative cognitive representation of a tourist destination, is a core cognitive–affective construct that drives tourists’ behavioral intentions (Kock et al., 2016). In our model, this was viewed as a key cognitive–affective construct within the organism, acting as a mental filter in analyzing harassment experiences to form an overall assessment of the destination. Finally, the intention to revisit was the ultimate behavioral response. Moreover, we included perceived travel risks as a vital moderating variable, serving as a boundary condition that strengthened the negative link between the stimulus (i.e., tourist harassment) and the behavioral response (i.e., intention to revisit). Perceived travel risks refer to travelers’ subjective judgment of potential negative outcomes (e.g., safety threats, health hazards, social disapproval) associated with a travel destination or experience, formed based on available information prior to arrival (Karagöz et al., 2021). Our model outlined the main stimulus–organism–response pathway and incorporated a key moderating factor, illustrating how negative travel experiences influence behavioral intentions through a moderation process. The findings will explain the effects of tourist harassment, provide guidance for the tourism industry, and help to create targeted policies.

First, instances of tourist harassment, as a stressful event, can trigger negative cognitive evaluations of the destination environment. This assessment classifies the incident as harmful or threatening, thereby provoking strong negative emotional responses such as anger, anxiety, and disgust (Prayag & Del Chiappa, 2023). These negative emotions can severely weaken the positive emotional bonds that tourists establish during their visit, fundamentally undermining their willingness to return. Second, tourists will infer the causes of the harassment incident. If tourists mainly attribute harassment to failures in the destination’s management systems or the overall hostility of the local community, rather than to isolated incidents, their tolerance and trust in the destination will significantly decrease (Hamdy et al., 2024a). This stable, external attribution style will reinforce tourists’ future avoidance of that destination, leading them to believe that revisiting would pose similar risks. Finally, harassment incidents may constitute a form of social identity threat. When tourists are targeted because of the distinctive attributes of vulnerable subgroups they belong to (e.g., women, minors), they may experience a strong sense of group rejection (Eger, 2021). This prompts individuals to actively distance themselves from the destination and share their negative experiences through social media and other channels. Such dissemination not only solidifies the victim’s own decision not to revisit but also significantly influences potential tourists’ risk assessments and destination choices (Wong et al., 2020). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Tourist harassment will be negatively related to tourists’ intention to revisit.

Harassment behaviors indirectly affect the intention to revisit by damaging the image of a destination. The destination image comprises two key aspects: the cognitive image and the emotional image (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). The cognitive image refers to the collection of tourists’ beliefs, knowledge, and attributes that they associate with a destination, while the emotional image refers to the feelings or emotional reactions a destination evokes (Baloglu & McCleary, 1999). Tourists’ perception of safety constitutes a core dimension of the cognitive image (Alrawadieh et al., 2019), and harassment incidents can directly tarnish this image. For example, harassment or aggressive selling behaviors have been found to make tourists feel violated (Eger, 2021), leading to feelings of insecurity and negative judgments of the destination’s culture (Otoo et al., 2019). This damage to the destination image can be further amplified through emotional mechanisms, as negative emotions like anxiety and anger solidify negative impressions of the destination (Khan et al., 2019). Conversely, improving the positive destination image has been significantly associated with tourists’ willingness to revisit (Li et al., 2023). From a cognitive standpoint, positive assessments of the destination’s attractions, infrastructure, and service quality directly boost the intention to revisit. The cognitive image provides a rational basis for behavioral intentions by reducing perceived risks and decision-making uncertainty (Lee et al., 2005).

 

Further, when tourists perceive that the destination offers high-quality tourism resources and services, their sense of psychological safety increases, which makes them more inclined to return. Emotional image also plays a key role. Emotional attachments formed during the destination experience, such as pleasure and satisfaction, deepen psychological bonds, which can translate into actual behaviors, such as recommending the destination to others and revisiting (Lee et al., 2005). Emotional image satisfies tourists’ psychological needs, strengthening their sense of identification and loyalty to the destination. Cognitive and emotional images jointly influence the formation of the overall image, which, as a comprehensive evaluation indicator, has a stronger predictive power for behavioral intentions (Qu et al., 2011). Research has shown that the overall image can integrate tourists’ multidimensional perceptions of the destination, directly and effectively driving revisit decisions (Stylos et al., 2016). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Destination image will mediate the relationship between tourist harassment and tourists’ intention to revisit.

The concept of perceived risk has been widely studied in tourism literature (Khan et al., 2019; Kokkhangplu & Suwanthep, 2024). Travel risks include crime, natural disasters, health issues, transportation, time, and communication (Emami & Ranjbarian, 2019). Compared to other travel risks, such as relatively distant natural disasters, research has suggested that travelers may be more concerned about interpersonal and situational risks such as harassment (Karagöz et al., 2021; Khan et al., 2019), which heighten tourists’ risk perceptions, especially among vulnerable groups (Yang et al., 2018). When tourists perceive risks at a destination, they activate psychological defense mechanisms by avoiding revisits to mitigate potential threats (Karagöz et al., 2021). This avoidance behavior is not only driven by actual negative experiences but also influenced by vicarious learning—that is, forming risk expectations through media reports or others’ experiences (Rather et al., 2022). Particularly in unfamiliar environments, tourists are more sensitive to harassment and more likely to adopt conservative behavioral strategies (Seow & Brown, 2018). Thus, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Perceived travel risk will positively moderate the relationship between tourist harassment and revisit intention, such that when perceived travel risk is higher, the negative correlation between harassment and tourists’ revisit intention will be stronger.

This study employed a structured questionnaire to systematically collect data from typical tourist attractions across China. The survey locations included representative cultural heritage and natural scenic locations, such as the Forbidden City in Beijing, the Terracotta Warriors in Xi’an, and West Lake in Hangzhou. The data-collection period was during the peak tourist season, from July to October 2024. Researchers conducted on-site intercept surveys, distributing 400 forms and recovering 339, with all respondents having provided informed consent. Subsequently, we implemented strict quality-control procedures, including completeness checks, verification of logical consistency, and analysis of answer patterns. After multiple screenings, 27 invalid forms were excluded, yielding 312 valid responses for an effective recovery rate of 78.0%.

 

Our sample comprised 147 (47.1%) men and 165 (52.9%) women. The mean age was 37.11 years (SD = 10.82), with 22 (7.1%) respondents aged 18–24 years, 144 (46.2%) aged 25–34 years, 74 (23.7%) aged 35–44 years, 46 (14.7%) aged 45–55 years, and 26 (8.3%) aged over 55 years. In terms of occupation, there were 122 (39.1%) corporate employees, 91 (29.2%) students, 49 (15.7%) technical professionals, 28 (9.0%) civil servants, and 21 (6.7%) with other occupations. Regarding education level, 68 (21.8%) had a high school education or below, 85 (27.2%) had a college diploma, 121 (38.8%) had a bachelor’s degree, and 38 (12.2%) held a master’s degree or higher.

All items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = totally disagree to 7 = totally agree. We measured tourist harassment using six items from Hamdy et al. (2024b). A sample item is “I frequently encountered people asking for money in this scenic area.” We assessed destination image using four items adapted from Kock et al. (2016). A sample item is “To what extent is this destination a desirable place to visit?” We assessed perceived travel risks using seven items developed by Karagoz et al. (2021) that specifically address the interpersonal and situational risks tourists perceive at a destination, such as feeling uncomfortable when strangers stare or when locals pester. These risks are closely linked to tourist harassment and differ from general travel risks like natural disasters and transportation accidents. A sample item is “I worried about personal safety (e.g., theft and robbery) in this scenic area.” Finally, we measured intention to revisit using three items from Zhang et al. (2018). A sample item is “I intend to visit this scenic area in the future.”

We used SPSS 29.0 and Mplus 8.9 for data analysis and processing in this study.

Table 1 displays the results of the reliability and validity analyses, showing good reliability and convergent validity. Table 2 presents correlation coefficients, indicating strong discriminant validity.

The model fit indices, χ²/df = 2.78, comparative fit index = .93, Tucker–Lewis index = .92, root-mean-square error of approximation = .07, standardized root-mean-square residual = .06, indicated a good fit to the data.

As shown in Table 3, the overall effect of tourist harassment on intention to revisit was −.34 (p < .001), indicating that harassment significantly decreased the intention to revisit. The direct effect was −.28 (p < .001), demonstrating that harassment had a significant negative impact on tourists’ intention to revisit, thereby supporting Hypothesis 1. Additionally, the indirect effect was −.06 (p < .01), which indicated that harassment indirectly reduced tourists’ intention to revisit by negatively affecting the destination image, thereby supporting Hypothesis 2.

As shown in Table 4, perceived travel risks moderated the link between harassment and tourists’ intention to return, thereby supporting Hypothesis 3. Further, Figure 1 shows that the negative impact of harassment on tourists’ intention to revisit was stronger when perceived travel risks were higher.

This study offers three key theoretical contributions to tourism research. First, we found robust empirical evidence of the direct negative effect of tourist harassment on revisit intention, thereby addressing a significant research gap (Hajra & Nag, 2023). Second, we applied the stimulus–organism–response framework to tourism harassment, revealing the psychological mechanism. Our findings showed that destination image acted as a cognitive filter, explaining how negative experiences are transformed into behavioral outcomes—a relationship supported by the theoretical propositions of Prayag and Del Chiappa (2023). Third, we have advanced understanding of individual differences in response to harassment by identifying perceived travel risks as a crucial moderating factor (Khan et al., 2019). This extends attribution theory (Weiner, 1985) to tourism contexts and provides boundary conditions on the relationship between harassment and behavior.

First, to address the immediate negative effects of harassment, destination-management organizations should implement visible on-ground interventions. This could include establishing tourist safety hubs with trained staff at key locations, and introducing mandatory certification training for all licensed tourism workers, focusing on recognizing harassment and using a centralized reporting hotline. Second, considering the mediating role of destination image, a structured reputation-management protocol is essential. Beyond general communication, we suggest introducing a safe-visit certification for compliant businesses, publishing annual transparency reports on resolved cases, and establishing a dedicated team that responds to harassment-related online reviews within 24 hours. Third, to counter the amplifying effect of perceived risk, we suggest incorporating risk-reducing features into services. Official apps should offer real-time crowdsourced safety heat maps—interactive geographic tools color-coded by safety levels (i.e., green = low risk, yellow = moderate risk, red = high risk)—and update these through a combination of official public security data and tourist feedback. In parallel, tourism businesses could display verified safety badges (e.g., woman-friendly accommodations, global-positioning-system-tracked taxis) and clearly outline safety features, including vetted transport and 24/7 emergency contacts.

This study has several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design prevents the establishment of causal relationships between variables. Future research could use longitudinal or experimental designs to confirm causality. Second, focusing solely on Chinese samples limits the extent to which the findings can be generalized. Cross-cultural comparative studies are necessary to examine cultural differences in perceptions of harassment.

Alrawadieh, Z., Alrawadieh, Z., & Kozak, M. (2019). Exploring the impact of tourist harassment on destination image, tourist expenditure, and destination loyalty. Tourism Management, 73, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2019.01.015

 

Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K. W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of Tourism Research, 26(4), 868–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-7383(99)00030-4

 

Cham, T.-H., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., & Memon, M. A. (2022). Will destination image drive the intention to revisit and recommend? Empirical evidence from golf tourism. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 23(2), 385–409. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-02-2021-0040

 

Eger, C. (2021). Gender matters: Rethinking violence in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 88, Article 103143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2021.103143

 

Emami, A., & Ranjbarian, B. (2019). The perceived risk of Iran as a tourism destination (A mixed method approach). Iranian Journal of Management Studies, 12(1), 45–67.

 

Hajra, V., & Nag, K. (2023). Harassment of religious visitors to Hindu temples in India. International Journal of Tourism Policy, 13(2), 180–186. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTP.2023.129824

 

Hamdy, A., Zhang, J., & Eid, R. (2024a). A new proposed model for tourists’ destination image formation: The moderate effect of tourists’ experiences. Kybernetes, 53(4), 1545–1566. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2022-1525

 

Hamdy, A., Zhang, J., & Eid, R. (2024b). The dark side of travel: The effect of tourist harassment on destination image and destination revisit intent: A moderated mediation approach. Kybernetes, 53(12), 5860–5882. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-04-2023-0706

 

Ivanov, S. H., Webster, C., Stoilova, E., & Slobodskoy, D. (2022). Biosecurity, crisis management, automation technologies and economic performance of travel, tourism and hospitality companies – A conceptual framework. Tourism Economics, 28(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354816620946541

 

Karagöz, D., Işık, C., Doğru, T., & Zhang, L. (2021). Solo female travel risks, anxiety and travel intentions: Examining the moderating role of online psychological-social support. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(11), 1595–1612. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1816929

 

Khan, M. J., Chelliah, S., Khan, F., & Amin, S. (2019). Perceived risks, travel constraints and visit intention of young women travelers: The moderating role of travel motivation. Tourism Review, 74(3), 721–738. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-08-2018-0116

 

Kock, F., Josiassen, A., & Assaf, A. G. (2016). Advancing destination image: The destination content model. Annals of Tourism Research, 61, 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2016.07.003

 

Kokkhangplu, A., & Suwanthep, D. (2024). Travel intention to destination via virtual tour: Role of perceived travel risks and behavioral. Cogent Social Sciences, 10(1), Article 2406304. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2406304

 

Lee, C.-K., Lee, Y.-K., & Lee, B. (2005). Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002 World Cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 839–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2004.11.006

 

Li, C., Lv, X., & Scott, M. (2023). Understanding the dynamics of destination loyalty: A longitudinal investigation into the drivers of revisit intentions. Current Issues in Tourism, 26(2), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.2012433

 

Luo, J. M., Chi, F. L., & Wang, H. (2021) Exploring the relationship between hedonism, tourist experience, and revisit intention in entertainment destination. Sage Open, 11(4), Article 21582440211050390. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211050390

 

Nicely, A., & Mohd, R. (2014). Demystifying visitor harassment. Annals of Tourism Research, 48, 266–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2014.05.011

 

Otoo, F. E., Badu-Baiden, F., & Kim, S. (2019). A qualitative cognitive appraisal of tourist harassment. International Journal of Tourism Research, 21(5), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2274

 

Prayag, G., & Del Chiappa, G. (2023). Nostalgic feelings: Motivation, positive and negative emotions, and authenticity at heritage sites. Journal of Heritage Tourism, 18(3), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743873X.2021.1874000

 

Qu, H., Kim, L. H., & Im, H. H. (2011). A model of destination branding: Integrating the concepts of the branding and destination image. Tourism Management, 32(3), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2010.03.014

 

Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., & Rasoolimanesh, S. M. (2022). First-time versus repeat tourism customer engagement, experience, and value cocreation: An empirical investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 61(3), 549–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287521997572

 

Satar, M. S., Rather, R. A., Cheema, S., Parrey, S. H., Ghaderi, Z., & Cain, L. (2023). Transforming destination-based customer engagement to revisit intention through co-creation: Findings from SEM and fsQCA. Tourism Review, 79(3), 601–621. https://doi.org/10.1108/TR-10-2022-0489

 

Seow, D., & Brown, L. (2018). The solo female Asian tourist. Current Issues in Tourism, 21(10), 1187–1206. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2017.1423283

 

Stylos, N., Vassiliadis, C. A., Bellou, V., & Andronikidis, A. (2016). Destination images, holistic images and personal normative beliefs: Predictors of intention to revisit a destination. Tourism Management, 53(2), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2015.09.006

 

Tan, K. P.-S., & Li, X. (2023). When tourists are angry or fearful: (In)effectiveness of emotion regulation in changing behavioral intention. Journal of Travel Research, 63(4), 796–817. https://doi.org/10.1177/00472875231173126

 

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

 

Wong, J. W. C., Lai, I. K. W., & Tao, Z. (2020). Sharing memorable tourism experiences on mobile social media and how it influences further travel decisions. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(14), 1773–1787. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2019.1649372

 

Yang, E. C. L., Khoo-Lattimore, C., & Arcodia, C. (2018). Power and empowerment: How Asian solo female travellers perceive and negotiate risks. Tourism Management, 68, 32–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.02.017

 

Zhang, H., Wu, Y., & Buhalis, D. (2018). A model of perceived image, memorable tourism experiences and revisit intention. Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 8, 326–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdmm.2017.06.004