Strengthening tourism ethnocentrism in emerging tourism destinations

Stimulus-Organism-Response paradigm

The stimulus-organism-response (S-O-R) paradigm, originally developed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974), offers a theoretical framework for understanding human behavior in relation to external stimuli. According to this paradigm, environmental stimuli trigger specific psychological feelings, which in turn result in responses in the form of observable behaviors (Elsharnouby et al., 2021). This implies that observable behavior is a response influenced by an individual's cognitive and emotional ability to attribute meaning to a given environmental stimulus (Amani, 2023b). The S-O-R paradigm has found extensive application within the hospitality and tourism domain, particularly in conceptualizing the behavior of employees and local residents toward the practices of hospitality organizations and tourism destinations (Cheng et al., 2020). In the context of the S-O-R paradigm, stimuli refer to external cues capable of eliciting responses (Perez-Vega et al., 2021). This study examines destination psychological ownership as one such external cue that can evoke observable behavior as a response from local residents. The theory suggests that the organism represents the psychological processes involved, including an individual's capacity to assign meaningful significance to external cues (Chang, 2016). In this study, the proposition is that destination psychological ownership refers to a sense of possessing a tourism destination, which is driven or fueled by the ethical practices and actions undertaken by that tourism destination. Deng et al. (2021) suggest that psychological ownership is characterized by the emotions linked to possessiveness, specifically the sentiments associated with “mine” and “ours,” notably the sensation of “I feel what is mine”. Psychological ownership comprises emotional components, such as the satisfaction derived from the sense of possessing or owning an object (Zhang and Xu, 2019).Various studies, such as those by Natarajan and Veera Raghavan (2023), Shi et al. (2022), Usman et al. (2023), that employed the SOR model have considered psychological ownership as an organism that accelerates responses. Finally, the S-O-R paradigm suggests that response refers to the actions or observable behavior demonstrated by an individual in reaction to the corresponding external cues (Amani, 2023b). The study posits that tourism ethnocentrism is an observable behavior that focuses on supporting the domestic tourism economy as a response to the ethical practices of the tourism destination.

Destination psychological ownership

Destination psychological ownership is a concept rooted in psychological ownership, which concerns the psychological feelings of possessing an object (Amani, 2022a; Kumar and Nayak, 2019). The literature on organizational behavior extensively discusses the idea that individuals can develop a sense of possession toward a focal or target object (Zhang and Xu, 2019). This psychological ownership drives various attitudinal behaviors, such as commitment toward the object (Kumar and Nayak, 2019). Psychological ownership can fulfill several human psychological needs, including self-identity, a sense of belonging, efficacy, and effectance (Kuo et al., 2021). According to Amani (2022a), psychological ownership can prompt individuals to express behaviors such as self-identification when the target object is seen as a reflection of their self-identity or self-image. Research suggests that psychological ownership differs from other ownership categories in several ways (Zhang and Xu, 2019). Firstly, psychological ownership involves subjective feelings toward the target object, stimulating a positive experience for the individual, even without legal ownership. Secondly, the essence of psychological ownership lies in the sense of possession of the target object. Finally, psychological ownership comprises both affective and cognitive states, with the affective state encompassing pleasure toward the target object and the cognitive state encompassing beliefs held by the individual toward the target object. Amani (2022a); Zhang and Xu (2019) propose several routes through which individuals develop psychological ownership:

• an individual is likely to presume that the target object under their control is an extension of themselves, thus fostering a sense of possession;

• a strong and intimate relationship with the target object can contribute to the development of ownership feelings; and

• dedicating resources such as time, physical and mental efforts, psychic energy, and financial investment toward the target object can enhance the sense of ownership.

After extensive research in the organizational domain, psychological ownership has gained acceptance in various fields, including marketing, hospitality management, and tourism management, offering significant explanatory power (Mishra et al., 2022). Studies in the tourism sector indicate that both tourists and local residents can develop psychological ownership toward a tourism destination (Amani, 2022a; Mishra et al., 2022). When considering local residents as subjects and the tourism destination as a focal or target object, destination psychological ownership refers to the psychological state in which local residents cultivate a sense of possession toward the tourism destination (Kumar and Nayak, 2019; Zhang and Xu, 2019). Promoting inclusive tourism development, it is argued that local residents are essential stakeholders who should develop a sense of ownership toward the destination. According to Zhang and Xu (2019), local residents develop destination psychological ownership through several avenues:

• They become familiar with the tourism destination due to their residency or extended stays, fostering a close relationship between the residents and the tourism site, ultimately leading to a sense of possession.

• Local residents feel a sense of obligation to contribute to the development of the tourism destination by participating in decision-making processes, engaging in advocacy, and providing positive recommendations, thereby increasing their control over the tourism site.

• Through their active involvement in destination-related decisions, local residents invest various resources, such as time, finances, physical and mental efforts, and psychic energy, thus further reinforcing their sense of destination ownership.

Ultimately, destination psychological ownership can motivate local residents to exhibit citizenship behaviors aimed at protecting and promoting the tourism destination (Xu et al., 2023; Yao et al., 2023).

Destination social responsibility

Destination social responsibility (DSR) has evolved from corporate social responsibility (CSR), signifying a business's commitment to enhancing the welfare of local communities through ethical practices and contributions (Su et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2022). CSR encourages corporations to prioritize societal well-being alongside profitability (Amani, 2022b). In the context of tourism, there is growing recognition of the importance of CSR due to the dependence of emerging tourism destinations on their environmental and cultural resources (Agapito et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2021a; Su et al., 2020). However, existing literature primarily focuses on CSR at the business level, with limited exploration of CSR practices within entire tourism destinations (Su et al., 2018). It remains unclear how CSR practices at the tourism destination level impact local communities (Lee et al., 2021a; Su et al., 2018, 2020). Therefore, DSR refers to the shared ideology and collaborative efforts of various stakeholders in a tourism destination to engage in socially responsible activities that align with the acceptable standards of the local community (Hassan and Soliman, 2021; Su et al., 2020). DSR encompasses the collective actions of stakeholders aiming to safeguard and enhance the social and environmental interests of the entire tourism destination (Hassan and Soliman, 2021). With both private and public stakeholders involved, inclusive tourism development necessitates aligning overlapping interests. Local residents, in particular, play a critical role as stakeholders who experience direct benefits or losses resulting from tourism development initiatives (Amani and Chao, 2023; Azinuddin et al., 2022). Compared to other stakeholder groups, local residents are most significantly affected by these initiatives. Recognizing this, Su et al. (2020) identifies four major areas of DSR activities: stakeholder responsibility, social responsibility, voluntariness responsibility, environmental responsibility, and economic responsibility.

Destination social responsibility-stakeholder dimension

The tourism sector comprises multiple stakeholders with diverse interests (Anderson and Sanga, 2019). To ensure responsible and sustainable tourism, tourism destinations must consider the impact of their actions and practices on others by establishing and nurturing relationships while safeguarding the rights and interests of stakeholders (Azinuddin et al., 2022). Among these stakeholders, local residents hold significant importance and possess unique interests in the tourism sector (Su et al., 2018). Literature suggests that local residents play a crucial role in promoting inclusive tourism development. Inclusive tourism development entails involving and engaging local residents as key participants in the growth of the tourism sector (Uchinaka et al., 2019; Wassler and Hung, 2017). Recent research in the field of tourism emphasizes treating local residents as active beneficiaries of the tourism sector, involving them in the process of enhancing the value of the tourism ecosystem (Bowen and Sotomayor, 2022). Tourism destinations should create favorable environments that enable local residents to actively participate in inclusive tourism development as investors and co-investors (Yang et al., 2021). Various literature indicates that when local residents are engaged as stakeholders in inclusive tourism development, they become more responsible and accountable to their respective tourism destinations (Amani, 2022c; Yang et al., 2021). Hence, tourism destinations should empower local residents to participate in tourism activities as investors, fostering their commitment and support for the domestic tourism economy (Wassler et al., 2021). Research in pro-poor tourism advocates for creating and expanding opportunities for local residents to benefit from investments in the tourism sector, thereby promoting sustainable tourism (Musavengane et al., 2019). Based on the above explanation, this study proposes the hypotheses that:

Destination social responsibility-social dimension

In the early stages of tourism sector development, many local communities in emerging tourist destinations were initially opposed to such development due to concerns about its negative impact on social aspects (Lwoga, 2013; Nelson, 2012). The intercultural exchange between local communities and tourists in the tourism sector was seen as potentially transformative to the traditional ways of life in these communities (Amani and Chao, 2021; Kinyondo and Pelizzo, 2015). Consequently, the tourism sector was perceived to have a detrimental effect on the social values and norms of the majority of local communities in emerging tourist destinations (Kinyondo and Pelizzo, 2015). Despite some notable improvements in safeguarding the social aspects of local communities, a significant majority still holds the belief that the tourism sector is responsible for socio-cultural changes that are not aligned with their interests (Kinyondo and Pelizzo, 2015; Lwoga, 2013). This negative perception has contributed to an unfavorable attitude toward the tourism sector and a lack of support from these local communities (Salazar, 2008; Snyman, 2014). Recent literature highlights the importance of integrating the social dimension into tourism activities to achieve inclusive tourism development. Social dimensions are recognized as essential components of tourism products that have positively transformed the attitudes and perceptions of the tourism sector among the majority of local communities in emerging tourist destinations (Amani and Chao, 2023). Emphasizing social responsibility, tourism destinations are encouraged to provide benefits to society, significantly impacting the local community (George, 2017). This entails the readiness and willingness of tourism destinations to address social needs and consistently contribute to community development (Su et al., 2017, 2020). The ongoing efforts to incorporate social values as a component of tourism products have naturally fostered a sense of ownership among the tourism destinations and encouraged local residents to actively participate in promoting domestic tourism (Amani, 2022a). Based on the aforementioned explanation, the following propositions are put forth:

Destination social responsibility-voluntariness dimension

In the context of destination social responsibility, a tourism destination is viewed as an integral part of society, playing a specific role in ensuring social well-being and welfare (Lee et al., 2021a; Su et al., 2020). Voluntariness refers to the activities undertaken by a tourism destination to utilize its resources in order to enhance the local areas comprising the tourism destination (Manthé and Bilgihan, 2023; Su et al., 2020). Within the framework of destination social responsibility, voluntariness focuses on encouraging tourism destinations to engage in morally right actions, even when not obligatory, by proactively exceeding imposed standards or rules (Azinuddin et al., 2022). Tourism destinations, together with their DMOs, are expected to function as societal members by actively participating in empowering local communities to achieve social and economic development (Zhang et al., 2022). Research in the field of pro-poor tourism emphasizes voluntariness as a philosophy embraced by communities seeking to enhance the current social status by creating and delivering value to local communities. DSR-voluntariness encompasses activities undertaken by tourism destinations, such as making voluntary charitable contributions, to support members of local communities (Nasr et al., 2022; Su et al., 2020). Research in the field of destination social responsibility indicates that charitable contributions, as a form of voluntariness, aim to bridge the gap between tourism destinations and local communities, fostering feelings of commitment and support for the tourism sector (Nasr et al., 2022). DSR voluntariness represents a philanthropic responsibility that involves donating a portion of tourism destinations' earnings to worthy causes within local communities (Manthé and Bilgihan, 2023). Local residents and other stakeholders are exerting pressure on tourism destinations to be socially responsible and accountable by participating in charitable contributions, which can strengthen the relationship between local communities and the tourism destination (Agapito et al., 2023). This demonstrates the commitment of tourism destinations to society and their recognition of the significant contributions made by local communities toward the development of the tourism sector (Su et al., 2018). Consequently, the aforementioned explanation leads to the development of the hypotheses that:

Destination social responsibility-environmental dimension

Recently, there has been a growing emphasis on promoting environmentally friendly practices and actions in tourism activities, leading to the emergence of green tourism and sustainable tourism (Kyara et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2021b). The goal is to protect available natural resources for sustainable development (Manthé and Bilgihan, 2023; Zhang et al., 2022). Stakeholders expect tourism destinations to engage in practices that protect the environment and provide considerable benefits, thereby promoting sustainable development (Su et al., 2017). Evidence indicates that a majority of stakeholders, including local residents, are aware of the importance of environmentally friendly practices (Nasr et al., 2022; Zhang et al., 2022). As a result, they are putting more pressure on tourism destinations to adopt significant measures to promote green tourism and sustainable tourism (Al-Sakkaf et al., 2022; Kyara et al., 2022). In emerging tourism destinations where the tourism sector heavily relies on natural resources, environmentally friendly practices are crucial for building a positive attitude and garnering support for the sector (Lee et al., 2021b). Research has shown that socially responsible tourism destinations, which promote environmentally friendly practices and actions, are likely to foster a positive attitude and perception among environmentally conscious stakeholders (Lee et al., 2021b). Therefore, tourism destinations, through DMOs, should demonstrate social responsibility and accountability by implementing strategic measures and actions that ensure tourism activities contribute to the protection rather than the destruction of the environment (Hu et al., 2019; Nasr et al., 2022). Consequently, the above explanation leads to the development of the following hypotheses:

Destination social responsibility-economic dimension

There has been an ongoing outcry in the majority of emerging tourism destinations, as it is widely believed that the tourism sector has not significantly contributed to fostering the economic development of local communities (Hafidh and Rashid, 2021; Nelson, 2012). According to Su et al. (2020), a tourism destination should fulfill its economic responsibilities by providing positive direct and indirect economic impacts on the community and other stakeholders. Numerous studies in the pro-poor tourism literature indicate that, although many emerging tourism destinations possess the potential for tourism development, the tourism sector's contribution to the local communities' economy remains insignificant (Amani and Chao, 2023; Hafidh and Rashid, 2021; Lwoga, 2013). The tourism sector in these tourism destinations heavily relies on the natural resources found in the localities. However, evidence suggests that the majority of local communities residing near these natural tourist attractions have not experienced the economic benefits of tourism in their areas (Meyer and Meyer, 2015; Ramaano, 2022). This situation has given rise to various challenges for inclusive tourism development, including negative attitudes and perceptions toward the tourism sector. Inclusive tourism development narratives suggest that when a tourism destination significantly contributes to the economy at the individual and country levels, it is more likely to promote support for the tourism economy (Ramaano, 2022). Therefore, tourism destinations, through their respective DMOs, should ensure that the tourism sector creates both direct and indirect employment opportunities, fosters investment, and makes substantive contributions to the economic well-being of local communities in the tourism destination (Hafidh and Rashid, 2021). Consequently, the aforementioned explanation gives rise to the development of the hypotheses that:

Tourism ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism, rooted in sociology and psychology, refers to an individual's psychological inclination to perceive their in-group as superior and as the standard against which out-groups are judged (Cardador et al., 2023; Hammond and Axelrod, 2006; Lever et al., 2022; Xiaolong et al., 2023). This perspective is limited to one's own in-group and is believed to be both the standard and the correct viewpoint (Lever et al., 2022). Ethnocentrism has extended into the marketing domain, leading to the concept of consumer ethnocentrism (Kock et al., 2019). Consumer ethnocentrism encourages local consumers to consider domestic products superior to foreign-made ones (Wel et al., 2018). It encompasses notions of responsibility and morality in supporting domestic products and the domestic economy. In the context of a competitive global market, consumer ethnocentrism is seen as a strategic tool for safeguarding a country's social and economic interests by promoting domestic consumption (Kock et al., 2019). It offers an alternative approach to complement strict laws and regulations, such as tax embargoes, which have had limited success in many countries (Kibret and Shukla, 2021). Consequently, consumer ethnocentrism aims to instill a patriotic mindset among consumers, emphasizing the importance of supporting the domestic economy through the purchase and consumption of domestic products (Stepchenkova, 2023). Research on consumer ethnocentrism suggests that ethnocentric consumers exhibit a reluctance to purchase foreign-made products due to their sense of patriotism toward their home country and its economy (Josiassen et al., 2022; Kock et al., 2019). These consumers firmly believe that buying foreign-made products is an unpatriotic act that should be discouraged among those who love their home country (Ismail, 2022). They are empowered and persuaded to view their home country, as well as its products, as superior to those of any other nation worldwide.

Tourism ethnocentrism is a newly emerging concept that highlights the presence of positive in-group biases within the realm of tourism (Kock et al., 2019; Lever et al., 2022; Rybina, 2021). It encompasses a preference for one's own nation and is manifested through personal beliefs and perceived moral obligations to contribute to the growth of the domestic tourism economy (Gedecho et al., 2023; Kock et al., 2019). This support for domestic tourism is characterized by a willingness to recommend domestic tourism, engage in tourism development, and travel within the destination (Gyimothy et al., 2022; Kock et al., 2019; Lever et al., 2022). Tourism ethnocentrism is distinct from other forms of support for the domestic tourism economy due to its emphasis on establishing differences between “us” and “them,” recognizing the significance of traveling within the home destination, and developing a sense of responsibility toward supporting local residents dependent on the domestic tourism economy (Bremser and Abraham, 2022; Xiaolong et al., 2023). Although its relationship with other tourism concepts is still being explored in the nascent literature (Lever et al., 2022), preliminary findings suggest that tourism ethnocentrism can lead to positive recommendations and advocacy behavior from both tourists and local residents (Boukamba et al., 2021; Rybina, 2021). Ethnocentric tourists are motivated to establish a close connection with the tourism destination and domestic tourism economy, encouraging other in-group members to support their country's tourism industry (Bremser and Abraham, 2022; Cardador et al., 2023; Stepchenkova, 2023; Todorović et al., 2023; Xiaolong et al., 2023). Thus, tourism ethnocentrism acts as a symbolic motive for travel, motivating tourists to decide to support tourism destinations and the domestic tourism economy (Rybina, 2021; Todorović et al., 2023). This understanding leads to the development of the following hypotheses:

Study setting and research design

The study was conducted in Dodoma, the capital city of Tanzania. The Dodoma region is rapidly emerging as a tourist hub in Tanzania, offering diverse opportunities for medical tourism, meeting tourism, and nature-based tourism [United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2019]. The Dodoma region is strategically located, facilitating the creation of tourism itineraries that connect the popular northern tourism circuit with other emerging circuits, primarily the southern circuit (URT, 2019). Furthermore, existing literature focusing on tourism destinations in developing countries emphasizes that current efforts to promote the tourism sector in the region should be more inclusive and participatory to ensure sustainable tourism development (Amani and Chao, 2023). This implies that there is room to examine the drivers that can foster local residents' support for domestic tourism in the region. Past studies indicate that the development of tourism in Tanzania has been hindered by the low involvement of local residents, resulting in minimal support for the tourism sector (Amani, 2023c).

Additionally, the Dodoma region boasts a wealth of potential resources for nature-based tourism, including the Swagaswaga Game Reserve, home to unique species in sub-Saharan Africa (Athumani et al., 2023; Nyakeko and Nyahongo, 2020). Moreover, the region is blessed with the Mkungunero Game Reserve, which is part of the Tarangire-Manyara ecosystem (Foley and Foley, 2022; John et al., 2020). Furthermore, the region is home to the Kondoa rock art, a UNESCO World Heritage Site in Tanzania renowned for its rock paintings discovered by archaeologists(Bwasiri and Smith, 2015; Tryon et al., 2018). The study utilized a quantitative cross-sectional survey design, a research method that involves collecting data from a sample population at a specific point in time (Zikmund et al., 2009). This method employs structured questionnaires or surveys to gather information on various variables of interest, aiming to provide a snapshot of the population (Saunders et al., 2009). Statistical techniques are often employed to collect and analyze data, enabling quantitative insights into the topic under investigation.

Sampling design and data collection procedures

The study employed convenience sampling, a non-probability sampling technique, with a sample size of 415 respondents. Convenience sampling is commonly utilized in quantitative studies to gather data from an easily accessible and readily available population (Zikmund, 2003). The sample was drawn from high-traffic areas, including academic institutions, shopping malls, and entertainment centers, targeting local residents aged 18 and above in the Dodoma region during the study period. Prior to participation, respondents were required to provide consent and were given a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire underwent pilot testing by tourism experts to ensure the measurement items adequately captured their respective constructs. Feedback from the experts was utilized to enhance clarity and eliminate any ambiguities in the questionnaire through rewording. The improved questionnaire was then distributed to respondents who expressed readiness to participate. A total of 450 questionnaires were distributed, resulting in a response rate of 92.2%, with 415 completed questionnaires returned. Data collection was conducted between January 2023 and March 2023.

Measurement scales and development of questionnaire

The study utilized previously validated scales from prior research in the field of tourism. To address the limitations of relying on a single item for assessing constructs in social research, the study employed multiple measurement items. Churchill (1979) argued that a single item is too narrow and may fail to capture all the characteristics of a variable, potentially leading to significant measurement errors. Following the recommended criteria, all variables in the study were measured using a minimum of three indicators, as depicted in Table 1. Five dimensions namely, stakeholder dimension (3 items), social dimension (4 items), voluntariness dimension (3 items), environmental dimension (4 items), and economic dimension (4 items), based on Su et al. (2020) were used to evaluate destination social responsibility. Measurement items from Amani (2022a) and Zhang and Xu (2019) were employed to assess destination psychological ownership (4 items), while measurement items from Kock et al. (2019) and Lever et al. (2022) were used to measure tourism ethnocentrism (5 items). All variables were assessed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Additionally, semantic differential questions or scales were used to capture all variables.

Common method bias

Common method bias (CMB) is a phenomenon where the variability observed in measurements is primarily influenced by the measurement technique used, rather than the underlying constructs being measured (Fuller et al., 2016). In social science studies employing a cross-sectional research design and self-administered questionnaires, CMB poses a significant challenge. To address this issue, various steps were taken during the instrument development process. The language used in the questionnaire was carefully chosen to avoid ambiguity and multiple interpretations. Furthermore, pretesting was conducted to refine the instrument and improve the clarity of measurement items. Additionally, Harman's single-factor test was employed to assess statistical measures, specifically examining whether the variance explained by a single factor across all observed items exceeded 50% (Podasakoff et al., 2003). The results of the test indicated that the explained variance fell 27.8% below the predetermined threshold, indicating the absence of common method biases that could impact the study.

Measurement model test

The measurement model underwent confirmatory factor analysis to assess its reliability and validity. The results showed that χ² = 596.291, df = 302, χ²/df = 1.974, which was below the recommended criterion of 3 by Hooper et al. (2008). Other model fit statistics were examined, including a goodness-of-fit index (GFI) of 0.905, comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.951, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of 0.943, and normed fit index (NFI) of 0.906. These values surpassed the recommended threshold of 0.9 by Bollen (1989), Hu and Bentler (1999). Additionally, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was found to be 0.049, below the recommended criterion of 0.08 by Hu and Bentler (1999). Furthermore, the psychometric properties of the model, such as reliability and validity, were evaluated using composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE), factor loadings (λ), and Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α). As shown in Table 2, the composite reliability and Cronbach's alpha coefficient values for all latent variables exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.7 by Cronbach (1951) and Said et al. (2011), indicating acceptable reliability. As shown in Table 1, the factor loadings of latent indicators were also higher than the recommended criterion of 0.7 by Hu and Bentler (1999), and as indicated in Table 2, the average variance extracted for all variables surpassed the threshold of 0.5 suggested by Valentini et al. (2016), demonstrating good convergent validity. To achieve discriminant validity, as suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981), the square root of AVE should be greater than the inter-construct correlations among the constructs and other constructs in the model. The results in Table 2 met this criterion, indicating good discriminant validity.

Structural model test and hypotheses testing

The study employed AMOS 21 and structural equation modeling to evaluate the structural model and test the proposed hypotheses. The structural model exhibited satisfactory fit statistics: χ² = 773.293, df = 312, p < 0.001, χ²/df = 2.479, which fell below the recommended criterion of 3 (Hooper et al., 2008). Additionally, GFI = 0.9, CFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.914, NFI = 0.9, exceeding the recommended criterion of 0.9 by McDonald and Ho (2002) and RMSEA = 0.060, below the recommended criterion of 0.08 by Hu and Bentler (1999). The results, presented in Table 3, provided evidence supporting all hypotheses based on standardized path coefficients,t-statistics, and p-values. H₁ examined the relationship between the stakeholder dimension and destination psychological ownership, which received support (ß = 0.101, t-values = 2.810, p-value < 0.05). In addition, H_1a, which tested the impact of the stakeholder dimension on tourism ethnocentrism, was supported (ß = 0.230, t-values = 5.232, p-value < 0.05). The findings suggest that an increase in DMOs' efforts to fortify strategies for safeguarding stakeholders' interests by one unit may lead to an 10.1% rise in destination psychological ownership among key stakeholders, such as local residents. Furthermore, increasing stakeholder engagement by one unit may lead to a 23% increase in the level of support for domestic tourism. H₂ proposed a positive relationship between the social dimension and destination psychological ownership, and the results confirmed this hypothesis (ß = 0.135, t-values = 3.926, p-value < 0.001). In addition, H_2a, which tested the impact of the social dimension on tourism ethnocentrism, was supported (ß = 0.153, t-values = 9.860, p-value < 0.001). The results imply that a one-unit increase in DMOs' investment in social issues can potentially enhance destination psychological ownership by 13.5%. Furthermore, increasing in DMOs investment in social issues by one unit may lead to a 15.3% increase in the level of support for domestic tourism.

H₃ predicted a positive relationship between the voluntariness dimension and destination psychological ownership, which found support (ß = 0.072, t-values = 2.158, p-value < 0.05). In addition, H_3a, which tested the impact of the voluntariness dimension on tourism ethnocentrism, was supported (ß = 0.148, t-values = 3.700, p-value < 0.001). Statistically, the findings suggest that a one-unit increase in participation in voluntary and charitable activities within a tourism destination can potentially elevate destination psychological ownership by 7.2%. Additionally, increasing in increase in participation in voluntary and charitable activities by one unit may lead to a 14.8% increase in the level of support for domestic tourism. Moreover, the results in Table 3 supported H₄, indicating the influence of the environmental dimension on destination psychological ownership (ß = 0.532, t-values = 8.747, p-value < 0.001). In addition, H_4a, which tested the impact of the environmental dimension on tourism ethnocentrism, was supported (ß = 0.202, t-values = 4.824, p-value < 0.001). These findings imply that a one-unit increase in engagement toward improving and promoting environmental issues or consciousness could amplify destination psychological ownership by 53.2%. Additionally, increasing increase in engagement toward improving and promoting environmental issues or consciousness by one unit may lead to a 20.2% increase in the level of support for domestic tourism. H₅ postulated a positive relationship between the economic dimension and destination psychological ownership, a hypothesis that gained support (ß = 0.099, t-values = 2.602, p-value < 0.05). In addition, H_5a, which tested the impact of the economic dimension on tourism ethnocentrism, was supported (ß = 0.238, t-values = 7.193, p-value < 0.001). The results indicate that when a tourism destination increases economic distribution within society by one unit, it could result in a 9.9% upsurge in destination psychological ownership. Moreover, increasing increase economic distribution within society by one unit may lead to a 23.8% increase in the level of support for domestic tourism. Finally, the results (ß = 0.494, t-values = 6.602, p-value < 0.001) presented in Table 3 supported H₆, which proposed a positive and significant relationship between destination psychological ownership and tourism ethnocentrism. These results suggest that a one-unit increase in destination psychological ownership might potentially elevate the intention to support domestic tourism by nearly 49.4%.

Mediation models test

The research model, depicted in Figure 1, suggests that destination social responsibility influences tourism ethnocentrism through the mediating effect of destination psychological ownership. The study hypothesized this mediation effect in H_7a, H_7b, H_7c, H_7d, and H_7e. To test the hypotheses, bias-corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (CIs) with 5,000 bootstrap samples were utilized in SPSS version 21 (Hayes, 2022). The choice of this technique is grounded in its frequent recommendation for testing mediation, attributed to its superior statistical power compared to other tests (Chen and Fritz, 2021). Results indicated that a bootstrapping CI entirely above zero suggests the presence of a mediation effect. As shown in Table 4, H_7a, which proposed the mediating role of destination psychological ownership between DSR stakeholders and tourism ethnocentrism, was supported (β = 0.0878; CI: 0.0446 to 0.1337). H_7b, suggesting that destination psychological ownership mediates the relationship between DSR-social and tourism ethnocentrism, was also supported (β = 0.0195; CI: 0.0568 to 0.1311). H_7c predicted the mediating role of destination psychological ownership on DSR-voluntariness and tourism ethnocentrism, and the results in Table 4 supported this hypothesis (β = 0.0922; CI: 0.0514 to 0.1441). Similarly, H_7d, proposing the mediation effect of destination psychological ownership between DSR-environmental and tourism ethnocentrism, was supported (β = 0.1204; CI: 0.0723 to 0.1793). Furthermore, the results in Table 4 supported H_7e, indicating that destination psychological ownership mediates the relationship between DSR-economic and tourism ethnocentrism (β = 0.143; CI: 0.076 to 0.219).

Limitations and future studies

The study has several limitations that present potential opportunities for further research in the tourism domain. Firstly, the study's findings may not be easily generalized beyond Tanzania, warranting future research to expand the geographical scope by including more countries to enhance the robustness of the findings. Moreover, future studies can explore the perspectives of local residents who directly engage in tourism activities or operations, such as travel agents and tour operators, in addition to those who do not participate directly. By including both groups, a comparative analysis can be conducted to examine potential differences in how they perceive destination social responsibility and their reactions toward it. This insight could enable DMOs to tailor specific approaches to destination social responsibility that address the distinct demands and expectations of each group, thereby promoting support for the domestic tourism economy. Additionally, the proposed research model can be modified to incorporate a moderator, such as local resident empowerment, to examine the combined effect of destination social responsibility and local resident empowerment on promoting tourism ethnocentrism. Furthermore, the conceptual framework can be adjusted to position the study within the literature concerning place attachment, self-congruity, and/or identification. Considering the limited number of studies that connect tourism ethnocentrism with various tourism-related concepts, this adaptation of the framework could offer greater depth and insight into the relationship between different tourism-related concepts and tourism ethnocentrism. Finally, while the current study utilized a cross-sectional design, future research could adopt a longitudinal design to capture the evolving attitudes of local residents toward supporting the domestic tourism economy under different environments, such as varying levels of destination social responsibility.