The role of intellectual humility in sustainable tourism development

Hendy, Nhung T.; Montargot, Nathalie Article The role of intellectual humility in sustainable tourism development Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Hendy, Nhung T.; Montargot, Nathalie (2025) : The role of intellectual humility in sustainable tourism development, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 15, Iss. 5, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15050185 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/321329 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 15 February 2025 Revised: 4 May 2025 Accepted: 9 May 2025 Published: 19 May 2025 Citation: Hendy, N. T., & Montargot, N. (2025). The Role of Intellectual Humility in Sustainable Tourism Development. Administrative Sciences, 15(5), 185. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci15050185 Copyright: © 2025 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 (https://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/). Article The Role of Intellectual Humility in Sustainable Tourism Development Nhung T. Hendy 1,* and Nathalie Montargot 2 1Department of Management, College of Business & Economics Towson, Towson University, Towson, MD 21252, USA 2Human Resources and Management Department, Excelia Business School, 17000 La Rochelle, France; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: In this study, we examined the role of intellectual humility (IH) as an antecedent of individual attitude toward sustainable tourism viewed from the lens of personality trait theory, virtue ethics theory, and regenerative tourism principles within a stakeholder framework. Data were collected via Qualtrics in an online survey of 233 adults in the United States. A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were applied to the data to test the measurement model. In addition, a bifactor CFA was found to have acceptable fit and appropriate in controlling for common method variance. A series of covariancebased structural equations models (SEMs) was estimated to test the hypothesized model while controlling for common method variance in addition to individual age and gender. Using the chi-square difference test for nested model comparison, we found that intellectual humility was a significant antecedent of the negative ecological impact of tourism ( β= 0.14, p< 0.01) while its relationships with economic and social impacts of travel became non-significant after controlling for common method variance. Pro-social tendency, operationalized as HEXACO Honesty–Humility, was also a significant antecedent of the negative ecological impact ( β = 0.17) and positive economic impact ( β = − 0.34) of tourism, after controlling for common method variance. Despite its limitations due to its cross-sectional design and use of self-report data in the U.S., this study was novel in introducing intellectual humility as an important virtue to be cultivated at the individual level to achieve a holistic approach to sustainable tourism, especially in shaping destination choices. In addition, the study highlights the need to detect common method variance in self-report data via bifactor CFA to avoid erroneous reporting of significant findings, hampering our collective research efforts to address climate change and its impact. Keywords: prosocial behavior; intellectual humility; common method variance; sustainable tourism; sustainability 1. Introduction There has been an increasing interest in understanding individual characteristics that serve as antecedents of pro-environmental behavior and environmental sustainability within global climate change research. Most research in environmental sustainability has focused on the economic viability or impact at the macro level, while less research has studied individual characteristics (e.g., psychological, cognitive, affective, and behavioral tendencies) at the micro level as antecedents of environmentalism (e.g., Yu et al.,2011; Bichler & Lösch,2019; Peeters et al.,2024). Defined as an ideology, environmentalism promotes human behavior that minimizes the negative impact on the environment (e.g., Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15050185 Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 2 of 18 Wolf-Watz,2014). Environmentalism has been studied in terms of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors in prior research (e.g., Desrochers et al.,2019). Pro-environmental attitude is defined as one’s tendency to exhibit a degree of favor toward the natural environment, whereas pro-environmental behavior refers to concrete action that positively affects the natural environment (Yu et al.,2011). Within the Big 5 personality traits, openness to experience was found to consistently exhibit a positive relation with pro-environmental attitude and behavior, whereas agreeableness was much less so, according to a meta-analysis (Soutter et al.,2020). In addition, Honesty–Humility, a personality dimension within the HEXACO framework, also known as pro-social tendency, was found to exhibit a positive relation with pro-environmental attitude and behavior according to one meta-analysis (Soutter et al.,2020). Honesty–Humility and pro-social tendency are used interchangeably throughout this paper. Tourism development has been investigated in prior research as an interrelated, albeit paradoxical, component of environmentalism (e.g., Stoddart & Graham,2018;Wolf-Watz, 2014). Specifically, nature-oriented tourism, a subset of which is ecotourism, built around promoting exposure to and connectedness with the wilderness in the natural environment, offers many economic (e.g., revenue to tourism operators and income to local residents), social (e.g., preservation of local culture), and ecological benefits (e.g., environmental conservation efforts in Hawaii, the U.S., and Costa Rica to name a few) as documented in prior research (e.g., Yee,2018;Miller et al.,2023;Poudel et al.,2016;Wolf-Watz,2014). However, tourism can also have a negative impact on the destination in economic (e.g., pricing out local residents), social (e.g., increased crime rate), and ecological (e.g., overcrowding) terms due to tourist loyalty and/or tourism hotspot destinations (e.g., Venice, Barcelona), which bring more harm than benefits to visitors and local residents alike (e.g., Papadopoulou et al.,2023). Sustainable tourism development has been proposed as a solution to provide economic benefits to residents and management authorities, while conserving the ecological environment and promoting social and cultural benefits of tourism development (Poudel et al.,2016). In this study, we adopted the definition of sustainable tourism proposed by the United Nations Environment Program and the World Tourism Organization in 2005. Specifically, sustainable tourism is defined as “Tourism that takes full account of its current and future economic, social, and environmental impacts, addressing the needs of visitors, the industry, the environment and host communities” (UNEP & WTO,2005). Existing sustainable tourism frameworks have not sufficiently considered the moral virtues of individual stakeholders as determinants of attitudes toward sustainability. Whereas general humility refers to one’s behavioral tendency as a golden mean between two extremes of arrogance and diffidence across situations, intellectual humility refers to one’s behavioral tendency in intellectual discourse, which is especially important in promoting a healthy dialogue in the climate change debate. Notwithstanding the potential importance of intellectual humility in global climate change research, its role as an antecedent of sustainable tourism remains unaddressed. Conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, the definition of intellectual humility includes four dimensions: (a) one’s tendency to recognize one’s own intellectual limitations; (b) optimally calibrating one’s intellectual limitations for epistemic truth, rather than appearing humble; (c) an appreciation for others’ intellectual strengths; and (d) a low concern for one’s own intellectual status and entitlement (Porter et al.,2022). In environmental research, it has been proposed that intellectual humility is needed to bridge the divide between climate change deniers or anti-environmentalism and climate change advocates or pro-environmentalism (e.g., Ferkany,2015). Intellectual humility, as a virtue, seeks a balanced perspective between two extremes: denying climate change and its negative environmental impacts on one hand, Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 3 of 18 and overemphasizing its negative consequences on the other (e.g., P. T. Brown,2023;P. T. Brown et al.,2023). Despite decades of extensive tourism research fueled by rising concerns over tourism’s emissions, a recent comprehensive review of 2573 journal articles on sustainable tourism reveals its limited impact (Peeters et al.,2024). One of the reasons for the limited impact of existing sustainable tourism research to mitigate climate change impact is the weak definition of sustainability (Peeters et al.,2024), coupled with an emphasis on systemic variables and processes. Shifting research attention from systems and their processes to individual attitudes and behavior to understand their role in tackling climate change is needed (Danner-Schröder et al.,2025). A holistic approach to sustainable tourism requires not only shared responsibility between government and business enterprises, but also the responsibility of individual citizens. Highlighting the significance of shaping destination choice, a study conducted in Sweden (Kamb et al.,2021) found it to be more effective at reducing carbon emissions compared to transport mode (e.g., train vs. car). Building upon the above discussion, the purpose of this study was threefold. First, we proposed a multilevel integrated framework of sustainable tourism in which intellectual humility is key in affecting tourism development attitude based on the theories of HEXACO personality (Ashton & Lee,2007), virtue ethics (e.g., Jamal,2004), and regenerative tourism principles (e.g., Dredge,2022) within Freeman’s (1984) and Freeman et al.’s (2010) stakeholder theory. Second, we extended prior research on examining personal characteristics and attitude linkage in tourism development. Third, this study added to extant research linking individual characteristics to the achievement of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Specifically, SDG#13—“Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impact” (https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal13 accessed on 5 October 2024)—is relevant to this research addressing climate change. This study contributes to the extant literature on pro-environmental attitude and sustainable tourism development in two ways. First, this study provides an opportunity to stimulate emerging research on intellectual humility as a necessary virtue in the global climate change debate and education. Second, this study was among the first to offer an opportunity for psychologists and sustainable tourism researchers to advance policies and practices aimed at achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), specifically Goal 13. 1.1. A Multi-Level Integrated Framework of Sustainable Tourism In this paper, we propose a multi-level framework of sustainable tourism development based on an interdisciplinary approach leveraging psychology, strategic management, and moral education research. As shown in Figure 1, our model includes three levels of analysis: individual, group, and national/international. While the focus of our study is at the individual level, we recognize the importance of the organizational and country-level influences on sustainable tourism in terms of policy and regulation standards. For example, policy and regulation standards serve as boundary conditions in motivating sustainable tourism behavior and deterring destructive tourism behavior (e.g., Chebli et al.,2024). Intellectual humility (IH) is a unique predictor of sustainable tourism attitude and subsequent behavior. Bichler and Lösch (2019) showed that collaborative governance processes between stakeholder groups as crucial in building trust and transparency to promote sustainable tourism at the institutional level. However, unless stakeholders exhibit IH, such collaborative governance processes will fail. For example, despite mounting evidence, many climate activists were unwilling to accept the fact that the goal of the Paris Climate Agreement to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit was unrealistic (Hadden & Prakash,2024). Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 4 of 18 Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19 Figure 1. A multi-level integrated framework of sustainable tourism. 1.2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development A literature review of research on intellectual humility (IH) shows that it has many benefits across analytical levels. At the individual level, IH has been documented to help people gain more accurate knowledge, make better decisions, live happier lives, and better cope with stress and anxiety (e.g., Krause et al., 2016; Leary, 2022). At the group level, IH has been shown to contribute to improved information sharing and reduced inter-group conflicts (Funck & Tomin, 2024). At the organizational level, IH has been proposed to improve an organization’s culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion (e.g., Hendy, 2022). At the societal level, IH was found to temper conflicts or disagreements stemming from different political affiliations, religions, and lifestyles. For example, people scoring high on IH were found to be less likely to derogate those whom they disagreed with (e.g., Porter & Schumann, 2018), more likely to support COVID-19 vaccination, and less likely to be influenced by misinformation and health claims lacking scientific or evidentiary basis (e.g., Huynh & Senger, 2021). As mentioned earlier, Honesty–Humility has been utilized in prior research as a prosocial tendency because Honesty–Humility reflects the tendency to be proactive, for example, initiating cooperation with others (active cooperation), which is essential in prosocial behavior (Hilbig et al., 2013). In contrast, agreeableness, one of the Big Five personality traits, was found to reflect the tendency to be reactive to cooperative initiative. People who are high on Honesty–Humility were also found to be fair to others by not exploiting them in establishing a fair distribution of outcomes in a laboratory setting (Hilbig et al., 2015). Extrapolated from the above findings, it is reasonable to expect that individuals high on Honesty–Humility will not exploit tourism development for their own benefits and view sustainable tourism fairly. Therefore, we hypothesize: H1. Pro-social tendency will be positively related to tourism development attitude with respect to economic, ecological, and social impact. Research showed that people holding moderate views tend to be higher on IH compared to those holding extreme views (e.g., Leary et al., 2017). In the context of sustainable tourism development, people high on IH are needed to reach a balancing act between two extremes: focusing only on the positive impact or the negative impact of tourism. The golden mean, in our opinion, represents reducing the negative impact caused by humans on the ecological, social, and economic environment while simultaneously considering technological and societal changes over time that promote sustainable tourism. This Figure 1. A multi-level integrated framework of sustainable tourism. Intellectual humility (IH) goes beyond pro-environmental behavior (e.g., recycling, reducing energy consumption, choosing sustainable products) to include a growth mindset conducive to adaptive learning and management of the complexity and multi-faceted nature of sustainability (Ayers et al.,2023). In addition, intellectually humble individuals respect multiple perspectives of all stakeholders in fostering sustainable tourism attitudes and behavior. More importantly, IH’s unique value is in mitigating personal bias (e.g., confirmation bias, short-term thinking) inherent in decision-making (e.g., Leary et al.,2017). Freeman’s (1984) stakeholder theory of strategic management was selected as a theoretical framework guiding our conceptual model for the following reasons. First, stakeholder theory is fundamentally an ethics theory (Freeman et al.,2010) because it promotes firms (e.g., tourism organizations) going beyond the minimum legal requirement to provide benefits to all stakeholder groups, including shareholders. According to the theory, tourism managers, in making decisions that impact their organization, should take into consideration the diverse needs and interests of all stakeholders, including local communities, visitors, businesses, and the environment, rather than prioritizing shareholders. Speaking differently, all parties having a stake in sustainable tourism should be given equal priority, and none should be treated as an instrument to achieve a goal (Freeman et al.,2010). Second, intellectual humility (IH) as a virtue can be developed through practice over time (e.g., Leary et al.,2017;Porter et al.,2022). As a virtue, IH is different from prosocial tendency, viewed as a personality trait (e.g., Duong & Pensini,2023;Krumrei-Mancuso,2017), such that intellectually humble individuals are aware of the limitations of their knowledge and are willing to update it. This reflects IH as a prerequisite to learning, which is unrelated to prosocial tendency as a personality trait of Honesty–Humility (Krumrei-Mancuso et al., 2019). The willingness to update one’s knowledge is crucial in the ongoing global climate change debate. IH, as a virtue, is needed to practice regenerative tourism principles (Dredge,2022), which require a shift in mindset to generate collective action from individual actions. Ethics of care as a virtue has been adopted in teaching environmental ethics (e.g., Jamal,2004; Tribe,2002), consistent with several studies calling for a change in sustainability education and environmental research (e.g., K. E. Jordan,2023;K. Jordan & Kristjánsson,2017;SadlerSmith,2015). Third, stakeholder theory supports viewing competing demands, such as preserving nature and developing nature for tourism purposes, as dualities (i.e., both/and outcome), rather than dualism (i.e., either/or outcome). Viewed through the duality lens, both stakeholders and shareholders can benefit from sustainable tourism development. In Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 5 of 18 the paragraphs below, we present our hypotheses based on the proposed conceptual model shown in Figure 1. 1.2. Literature Review and Hypotheses Development A literature review of research on intellectual humility (IH) shows that it has many benefits across analytical levels. At the individual level, IH has been documented to help people gain more accurate knowledge, make better decisions, live happier lives, and better cope with stress and anxiety (e.g., Krause et al.,2016;Leary,2022). At the group level, IH has been shown to contribute to improved information sharing and reduced inter-group conflicts (Funck & Tomin,2024). At the organizational level, IH has been proposed to improve an organization’s culture of diversity, equity, and inclusion (e.g., Hendy,2022). At the societal level, IH was found to temper conflicts or disagreements stemming from different political affiliations, religions, and lifestyles. For example, people scoring high on IH were found to be less likely to derogate those whom they disagreed with (e.g., Porter & Schumann,2018), more likely to support COVID-19 vaccination, and less likely to be influenced by misinformation and health claims lacking scientific or evidentiary basis (e.g., Huynh & Senger,2021). As mentioned earlier, Honesty–Humility has been utilized in prior research as a pro-social tendency because Honesty–Humility reflects the tendency to be proactive, for example, initiating cooperation with others (active cooperation), which is essential in pro-social behavior (Hilbig et al.,2013). In contrast, agreeableness, one of the Big Five personality traits, was found to reflect the tendency to be reactive to cooperative initiative. People who are high on Honesty–Humility were also found to be fair to others by not exploiting them in establishing a fair distribution of outcomes in a laboratory setting (Hilbig et al.,2015). Extrapolated from the above findings, it is reasonable to expect that individuals high on Honesty–Humility will not exploit tourism development for their own benefits and view sustainable tourism fairly. Therefore, we hypothesize: H1. Pro-social tendency will be positively related to tourism development attitude with respect to economic, ecological, and social impact. Research showed that people holding moderate views tend to be higher on IH compared to those holding extreme views (e.g., Leary et al.,2017). In the context of sustainable tourism development, people high on IH are needed to reach a balancing act between two extremes: focusing only on the positive impact or the negative impact of tourism. The golden mean, in our opinion, represents reducing the negative impact caused by humans on the ecological, social, and economic environment while simultaneously considering technological and societal changes over time that promote sustainable tourism. This duality of conservation and environmental development, inherent in the seemingly opposing forces between protecting natural environments and pursuing environmental development for economic growth, has been documented in prior research. For example, although natureminded tourists are aware of their carbon footprint impact on the ecological environment, they still seek to travel to remote areas, rather than being deterred by it (e.g., Wolf-Watz, 2014;Eriksson & Balslev Clausen,2024). Intellectually humble visitors may be more willing to adopt sustainable practices promoted by tourism operators who adhere to stakeholder principles. They may be more receptive to information about responsible waste disposal, water conservation, and respecting local customs. Tourism operators who actively engage with diverse stakeholders and communicate the reasons behind their sustainable practices can foster IH in visitors by exposing them to different viewpoints and the complexities of sustainable tourism. Therefore, we hypothesize: Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 6 of 18 H2. Intellectual humility will be positively related to tourism development attitude with respect to economic, ecological, and social impact. 2. Methods 2.1. Sample and Procedure We used G*Power version 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al.,2009) to determine the adequate sample size for this research. A multiple regression model in which two control variables of age and gender, plus two predictor variables of pro-social tendency and intellectual humility, was used to calculate the required sample size. A small effect size was used, i.e., f-squared equal to 0.05, with two predictors being correlated at 0.2. A sample size of 192 was needed to achieve a power of 0.7, and a sample size of 233 was needed to achieve a power of 0.8. We proceeded with data collection knowing that we would need a sample varying from 192 to 233 individuals, depending on the statistical power level. Data were collected entirely online and anonymously using Qualtrics during Fall 2020 and Spring 2021. Participation in the study was voluntary, and participants did not receive any monetary compensation in exchange for their participation. The study protocol was approved by the first author’s Institutional Review Board. A total of 233 working adults participated in the study. Using a snowball sampling technique, participants were recruited via email using the authors’ personal and social networks. A survey link was embedded in the invitation email asking participants to complete the survey for research purposes. Clicking the link took participants to a page where they were introduced to the study and given the choice to provide consent or not at the end of the page. To be eligible for participation in the survey, participants must be at least 18 years of age and reside in the U.S. at the time of the survey completion. Participants were told that by clicking “I consent to participate in the study”, they would not be able to withdraw their consent after that, i.e., in the middle of the survey, which allowed for partial survey response analyses. However, they were informed that they had the right to discontinue completing the survey at any point in time if they felt uncomfortable answering any of the survey questions. The survey questions were presented in the following order: intellectual humility (IH), prosocial tendency, attitude toward tourism development, and demographic variables. The average time to complete the survey was 7 min, ranging from 4 to 12 min. Participants were diverse in terms of age (M = 27.34, SD = 12.18), ranging from 18 to 84 years old, of whom 111 were male and 110 were female. In terms of ethnicity, the majority was reported as “White” with 60.8%, while Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians accounted for 17.1%, 5.4%, and 9.5%, respectively. A total of 7.2% described themselves as “Other”. Missing data were imputed using the regression approach in SPSS version 28 because it leverages the relationships between variables in the dataset to provide more accurate estimates compared to other methods, such as mean or median imputation based on prior research recommendations of missing data using Likert scales (Wu et al.,2015). 2.2. Measures Pro-social tendency. We used Lee and Ashton’s (2018) 16-item measure of the Honesty– Humility dimension of the HEXACO personality inventory. Sample items include “If I want something from a person I dislike, I will act very nicely toward that person to get it”; “I’d be tempted to use counterfeit money if I were sure I could get away with it”; and “I would like to be seen driving around in a very expensive car”. Scale anchors ranged from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was 0.77. Intellectual humility. We used Leary et al.’s (2017) 6-item scale to measure participants’ general intellectual humility. Anchors of the items ranged from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”. Sample items include “I question my own opinions, positions, and Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 7 of 18 viewpoints because they could be wrong” and “I reconsider my opinions when presented with new evidence”. Cronbach’s alpha of this measure was 0.80. Attitude toward Tourism development. Poudel et al.’s (2016) 45-item measure of tourism impact was used. This scale measures the perceived impact of tourism development in three areas: social, economic, and ecological environments, each with positive and negative impacts. Sample items for ecological impact include “Tourism destroys the natural environment”; “Tourism provides incentive for conservation of natural areas”; social impact “Tourism enhances knowledge of other cultures”; “Tourism development increases crime rates”; economic impact “Tourism development increases property taxes”; and “Tourism increases income and improves living standards of local communities”. Anchors ranged from 1 “strongly disagree” to 7 “strongly agree”. Cronbach’s alphas for the subscales were 0.88, 0.85, 0.80, 0.90, 0.88, and 0.84, respectively. All internal consistency estimates of variables used in the study were above the recommended cutoff of 0.7 (Nunnally,1978). Control variables. We controlled for participant biological sex and age in the statistical analyses based on previous research reporting these two variables as significant correlates of pro-environmentalism (e.g., Desrochers et al.,2019) Statistical analysis. SPSS version 28 was used to conduct data screening, scoring, and imputation. MPlus version 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén,1998–2017) was used to run the confirmatory factor analyses to validate the measurement and structural models. 3. Results Assumption testing. We conducted various analyses prior to validating the conceptual model to make sure all statistical assumptions concerning multivariate normality were met. Specifically, we first ran a series of descriptive analyses in SPSS for all variables at the item level to determine if they met the normality assumptions to be reflective indicators of latent variables in confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) based on Kline’s (2005) recommendations. All items had small skewness values (between − 2 and +2) with kurtosis values between − 3 and +3. Given the recommended acceptable levels of skewness (between − 3 and +3) and kurtosis ( − 10 to +10) for covariance-based structural equations modeling (SEM) that we used to validate our conceptual model (T. A. Brown,2006), we deemed our variables as having met the assumption of normality. Second, we looked at the probabilityprobability (P-P) plot of all variables to determine multivariate normality. Most variables are closely clustered along the diagonal line with small deviation from normality due to the curves from the Q-Q plot for Honesty–Humility and intellectual humility, respectively. In addition, we ran a series of regression analyses in which we regressed the subscales of travel impact onto pro-social tendency and intellectual humility (IH) to get an estimate of multicollinearity among the two predictors of prosocial tendency and IH. The results showed the VIF values to be 1.05, which is a very small departure from 1, indicating almost no correlation between predictors. We noted that covariance-based SEM is robust to small deviations from normality and multicollinearity between or among predictors, and therefore we proceeded with our subsequent model testing based on T. A. Brown’s (2006) recommendations. Table 1shows the descriptive statistics and zero-order intercorrelations of observed variables included in the study. An examination of Table 1reveals the following. First, the correlation between sex and pro-social tendency was significant (r= 0.15, p< 0.05), favoring female participants. This finding was consistent with previous research (e.g., Lee & Ashton,2020). In addition, the chronological age was significantly related to pro-social tendency, favoring older participants (r= 0.33, p< 0.01). This finding was also consistent Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 8 of 18 with previous research (e.g., Ashton & Lee,2016). Taken together, these findings justified treating sex and age as control variables in subsequent analyses. Table 1. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations of variables in the study. Variables Mean Std 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Age 27.37 12.20 - 2. Gender (1 = Male, 2 = Female) 1.49 0.50 − 0.19 - 3. Prosocial behavior (HH) 3.51 0.58 0.33 0.15 0.77 4. Intellectual humility 4.05 0.64 0.15 0.07 0.23 0.80 5. Negative ecological impact 4.87 1.15 0.21 0.11 0.18 0.19 0.88 6. Positive ecological impact 3.88 1.11 0.07 − 0.14 0.08 − 0.01 − 0.41 0.85 7. Negative economic impact 5.22 0.92 0.07 0.05 0.03 0.19 0.26 − 0.01 0.80 8. Positive economic impact 5.12 0.83 − 0.06 − 0.01 − 0.21 0.14 − 0.22 0.30 0.31 0.90 9. Negative social impact 4.49 0.90 0.09 0.06 − 0.01 0.04 0.51 − 0.33 0.33 − 0.17 0.88 10. Positive social impact 5.30 0.87 − 0.02 0.21 0.00 0.18 − 0.01 0.12 0.20 0.47 − 0.08 0.84 Note: Correlations ≥ 0.13 are significant at p< 0.05; Correlations ≥ 0.18 are significant at p< 0.01. Cronbach’s alphas were shown along the diagonal. Statistical models. Because of the self-report nature of the study data, common method variance was addressed via a latent model approach (i.e., confirmatory factor analysis), estimating an unmeasured method factor following Podsakoff et al. (2003) recommendations. This approach is also known as a bifactor CFA approach (e.g., Biderman et al., 2011). The bifactor CFA approach has been found to be more effective at detecting common method variance than Harman’s single-factor test, commonly used in management research (Howard et al.,2024). A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) was applied to individual item responses using Mplus version 8.1 (Muthén & Muthén,1998–2017). Based on previous research (e.g., Biderman et al.,2011) showing that adding a bifactor general factor improves model fit over a CFA model without such a factor, we also ran a bifactor CFA to address common method variance per Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) and Li and Savalei’s (2025) recommendations. The following cutoff values were used to determine model fit. For the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), a value of close to 0.95 was considered a good fit. For Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA), a value close to 0.06 was considered a good fit (Hu & Bentler,1999). Table 1shows the descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations of all variables in the study using summed scores. Table 2shows the CFA and bifactor CFA model fit statistics. Model fit comparison was conducted using the chi-square difference test. As shown in Table 2, Model 4, which includes eight substantive factors (intellectual humility, Honesty–Humility, and six factors comprising the tourism impact attitude) plus a general factor, was considered the best fitting model with goodness-of-fit statistics of χ2= 3940.33 (df = 2058), CFI = 0.73, RMSEA = 0.06. The fit statistics of Model 3, which does not contain the general factor, were worse off, with χ2 = 4256.76 (df = 2124), CFI = 0.70, RMSEA = 0.07. Model 4 provided a better fit to the data than Model 3 [(∆χ2= 316.43 (∆df = 66), p< 0.001)], suggesting the existence of common method variance. This model was retained to confirm the structural model shown in Figure 2. Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 15 of 18 attitudes towards tourism development but also the supporting behaviors related to sustainable tourism policies. We are optimistic that this study is an important step toward building a foundation for future inquiries at the intersection of environmental factors and individual characteristics, ultimately contributing to the broader United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Specifically, by highlighting the importance of cultivating intellectual humility among and between tourism stakeholders, our study directly addresses SDG 13: Climate Action. Recognizing that combating climate change and its impacts requires collective effort, our research offers a preliminary insight into how fostering intellectual humility can shape more sustainable destination choices, paving the way for a transition from individual awareness to individual and collective action aimed at reducing tourism-related emissions and mitigating their impact on the global climate. Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at https:// www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/admsci15050185/s1, Table S1. Bifactor Indices Calculation. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.T.H. and N.M.; methodology, N.T.H.; software, N.T.H.; validation, N.T.H.; formal analysis, N.T.H.; investigation, N.T.H. and N.M.; resources, N.T.H. and N.M.; data curation, N.T.H.; writing—original draft preparation, N.T.H.; writing—review and editing, N.T.H. and N.M.; visualization, N.T.H.; supervision, N.T.H. and N.M.; project administration, N.T.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The authors received no external funding for this research. Institutional Review Board Statement: This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Towson University, Maryland, U.S.A. on 21 July 2020, protocol #1196. Informed Consent Statement: Voluntary informed consent was obtained from all participants in this study. Data Availability Statement: Data for this study are available on Open Science Framework via this link: https://osf.io/5sdvf/. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. References Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review,11, 150–166. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2016). Age trends in HEXACO-PI-R self-reports. Journal of Research in Personality,64, 102–111. [CrossRef] Ayers, J., Missimer, M., & Bryant, J. (2023). Intrapersonal capacities for sustainability: A change agent perspective on the ‘inner dimension’ of sustainability work. Sustainability Science,18, 1181–1197. [CrossRef] Bichler, B. F., & Lösch, M. (2019). Collaborative governance in tourism: Empirical insights into a community-oriented destination. Sustainability,11(23), 6673. [CrossRef] Biderman, M. D., Nguyen, N. T., Cunningham, C. J. L., & Ghorbani, N. (2011). The ubiquity of common method variance: The case of the big five. Journal of Research in Personality,45, 417–429. [CrossRef] Brown, P. T. (2023). I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published. The Free Press. Available online: https:// www.thefp.com/p/i-overhyped-climate-change-to-get-published (accessed on 6 October 2024). Brown, P. T., Hanley, H., Mahesh, A., Reed, C., Strenfel, S. J., Davis, S. J., Kochanski, A. K., & Clements, C. B. (2023). Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California. Nature,621, 760–766. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. The Guilford Press. Chebli, A., Moussa-Alloui, L. A., Kadri, B., & Falardeau, I. (2024). Dysfunctional tourism behaviors in national parks: An exploration of causes, typologies, and consequences in the case of Saharan tourism. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism,45, 100713. [CrossRef] Danner-Schröder, A., Mahringer, C., Sele, K., Jarzabkowski, P., Rouleau, L., Feldman, M., Pentland, B., Huysman, M., Sergeeva, A. V., Gherardi, S., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Gehman, J. (2025). Tackling grand challenges: Insights and contributions from practice theories. Journal of Management Inquiry,34(2), 143–166. [CrossRef] Desrochers, J. E., Albert, G., Milfont, T. L., Kelly, B., & Arnocky, S. (2019). Does personality mediate the relationship between sex and environmentalism? Personality and Individual Differences,147, 204–213. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 16 of 18 Dredge, D. (2022). Regenerative tourism: Transforming mindsets, systems and practices. Journal of Tourism Futures,8, 269–281. [CrossRef] Dueber, D. M. (2017). Bifactor indices calculator: A microsoft excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models. University of Kentucky. [CrossRef] Duong, M., & Pensini, P. (2023). The role of connectedness in sustainable behavior: A parallel mediation model examining the prosocial foundations of pro-environmental behavior. Personality and Individual Differences,209, 112216. [CrossRef] Eriksson, A., & Balslev Clausen, H. (2024). Nature always recovers! A degrowth analysis of event participants’ perspective on environmental impacts. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism,45, 100706. [CrossRef] Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods,41, 1149–1160. [CrossRef] Ferkany, M. (2015). Is it arrogant to deny climate change or is it arrogant to say it is arrogant? Environmental Values,24, 705–724. [CrossRef] Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press. Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., Parmar, B., & de Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Cambridge University Press. Funck, M., & Tomin, S. (2024). Beyond ego: The impact of intellectual humility on new venture team processes and performance. In Academy of management proceedings (Vol. 2024, p. 19977). Academy of Management. Grilli, G., Tyllianakis, E., Luisetti, T., Ferrini, S., & Turner, R. K. (2021). Prospective tourist preferences for sustainable tourism development in small Island developing states. Tourism Management,82, 104178. [CrossRef] Hadden, J., & Prakash, A. (2024). The value of unrealistic targets: Why some climate activists are unwilling to abandon the 1.5 ◦ C target. NPJ Climate Action,3, 29. [CrossRef] Hendy, N. T. (2020). Using open mind to foster intellectual humility in teaching business ethics. Journal of Business Ethics Education, 17, 29–46. Available online: https://www.neilsonjournals.com/JBEE/JBEEpromos/Hendy17P.pdf (accessed on 30 April 2025). [CrossRef] Hendy, N. T. (2022). The role of intellectual humility in leadership and promoting workplace diversity, equity, inclusion, and belongingness: Leadership intellectual humility. In A. El-Amin (Ed.), Advances in human resources management and organizational development (pp. 81–98). IGI Global. [CrossRef] Hendy, N. T., & Biderman, M. D. (2019). Using bifactor model of personality to predict academic performance and dishonesty. International Journal of Management Education,17, 294–303. [CrossRef] Hernandez, J. (2024). Venice will limit tour groups to 25 people and ban loudspeakers to control tourism. Available online: https:// www.npr.org/2024/01/01/1222393894/venice-tour-groups-loudspeakers (accessed on 5 October 2024). Hilbig, B. E., Thielmann, I., Wührl, J., & Zettler, I. (2015). From honesty–humility to fair behavior—Benevolence or a (blind) fairness norm? Personality and Individual Differences,80, 91–95. [CrossRef] Hilbig, B. E., Zettler, I., Leist, F., & Heydasch, T. (2013). It takes two: Honesty–humility and agreeableness differentially predict active versus reactive cooperation. Personality and Individual Differences,54, 598–603. [CrossRef] Howard, M. C., Boudreaux, M., & Oglesby, M. (2024). Can Harman’s single-factor test reliably distinguish between research designs? Not in published management studies. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,33(6), 790–804. [CrossRef] Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6(1), 1–55. [CrossRef] Huynh, H. P., & Senger, A. R. (2021). A little shot of humility: Intellectual humility predicts vaccination attitudes and intention to vaccinate against COVID-19. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,51(4), 449–460. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Jamal, T. B. (2004). Virtue ethics and sustainable tourism pedagogy: Phronesis, principles and practice. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 12(6), 530–545. [CrossRef] Jordan, K., & Kristjánsson, K. (2017). Sustainability, virtue ethics, and the virtue of harmony with nature. Environmental Education Research,23, 1205–1229. [CrossRef] Jordan, K. E. (2023). The intersection of environmental and sustainability education, and character education: An instrumental case study. British Educational Research Journal,49, 288–313. [CrossRef] Kamb, A., Lundberg, E., Larsson, J., & Nilsson, J. (2021). Potentials for reducing climate impact from tourism transport behavior. Journal of Sustainable Tourism,29, 1365–1382. [CrossRef] Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford. Krause, N., Pargament, K. I., Hill, P. C., & Ironson, G. (2016). Humility, stressful life events, and psychological well-being: Findings from the landmark spirituality and health survey. The Journal of Positive Psychology,11(5), 499–510. [CrossRef] Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J. (2017). Intellectual humility and prosocial values: Direct and mediated effects. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12, 13–28. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 17 of 18 Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., Haggard, M. C., LaBouff, J. P., & Rowatt, W. C. (2019). Links between intellectual humility and acquiring knowledge. The Journal of Positive Psychology,15(2), 155–170. [CrossRef] Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., Pärnamets, P., Bland, S., Astola, M., Cichocka, A., de Ridder, J., Mercier, H., Meyer, M., O’Connor, C., Porter, T., Tanesini, A., Alfano, M., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2025). Toward an understanding of collective intellectual humility. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,29(1), 15–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Leary, M. R. (2022). Intellectual humility as a route to more accurate knowledge, better decisions, and less conflict. American Journal of Health Promotion,36, 1401–1403. [CrossRef] Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T., Deffler, S. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (2017). Cognitive and interpersonal features of intellectual humility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,43(6), 793–813. [CrossRef] Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2018). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO-100. Assessment,25, 543–556. [CrossRef] Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2020). Sex differences in HEXACO personality characteristics across countries and ethnicities. Journal of Personality,88, 1075–1090. [CrossRef] Li, S., & Savalei, V. (2025). Evaluating statistical fit of confirmatory bifactor models: Updated recommendations and a review of current practice. Psychological Methods. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Meagher, B. R., Gunn, H., Sheff, N., & Van Tongeren, D. R. (2019). An intellectually humbling experience: Changes in interpersonal perception and cultural reasoning across a five-week course. Journal of Psychology & Theology,47(3), 217–229. [CrossRef] Miller, A. B., Cox, C., & Morse, W. C. (2023). Ecotourism, wildlife conservation, and agriculture in Costa Rica through a social-ecological systems lens. Frontiers in Sustainable Tourism,2, 1179887. [CrossRef] Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2017). Mplus user’s guide (8th ed.). Muthén & Muthén. Nasser, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2003). A monte carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling on measures of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement,63(5), 729–757. [CrossRef] Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Papadopoulou, N. M., Ribeiro, M. A., & Prayag, G. (2023). Psychological determinants of tourist satisfaction and destination loyalty: The influence of perceived overcrowding and overtourism. Journal of Travel Research,62(3), 644–662. [CrossRef] Peeters, P., Çakmak, E., & Guiver, J. (2024). Current issues in tourism: Mitigating climate change in sustainable tourism research. Tourism Management,100, 104820. [CrossRef] Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 879–903. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Porter, T., Baldwin, C. R., Warren, M. T., Murray, E. D., Cotton Bronk, K., Forgeard, M. J. C., Snow, N. E., & Jayawickreme, E. (2022). Clarifying the content of intellectual humility: A systematic review and integrative framework. Journal of Personality Assessment, 104(5), 573–585. [CrossRef] Porter, T., & Schumann, K. (2018). Intellectual humility and openness to the opposing view. Self and Identity,17, 139–162. [CrossRef] Poudel, S., Nyaupane, G. P., & Budruk, M. (2016). Stakeholders’ perspectives of sustainable tourism development: A new approach to measuring outcomes. Journal of Travel Research,55(4), 465–480. [CrossRef] Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Mitchell, R., & Gudergan, S. P. (2020). Partial least squares structural equation modeling in HRM research. International Journal of Human Resource Management,31(12), 1617–1643. [CrossRef] Sadler-Smith, E. (2015). Communicating climate change risk and enabling pro-environmental behavioral change through human resource development. Advances in Developing Human Resources,17(4), 442–459. [CrossRef] Soutter, A. R. B., Bates, T. C., & Mõttus, R. (2020). Big five and HEXACO personality traits, proenvironmental attitudes, and behaviors: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science,15(4), 913–941. [CrossRef] Stoddart, Mark, C. J., & Graham, P. (2018). Offshore oil, environmental movements, and the oil-tourism Interface: The old harry conflict on Canada’s east coast. Sociological Inquiry,88, 274–296. [CrossRef] Stylidis, D., Biran, A., Sit, J., & Szivas, E. M. (2014). Residents’ support for tourism development: The role of residents’ place image and perceived tourism impacts. Tourism Management,45, 260–274. [CrossRef] Šergo, Z., Gržini´c, J., & Gavrani´c, T. Z. (2022). A cross-countries analysis of biodiversity loss and tourism demand: Evidence from count models. Tourism,70, 642–655. [CrossRef] Tribe, J. (2002). The philosophic practitioner. Annals of Tourism Research,29(2), 338–357. [CrossRef] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science,211(4481), 453–458. [CrossRef] United Nations Environment Program & World Tourism Organization. (2005). Making tourism more sustainable. A guide for policy makers. UNEP and UNWTO. Walters, C. J., & Holling, C. S. (1990). Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology,71(6), 2060–2068. [CrossRef] Wolf-Watz, D. (2014). Traveling for nature? On the paradox of environmental awareness and travel for nature experiences. Tourism: An International Interdisciplinary Journal,62, 5–18. [CrossRef] Wu, W., Jia, F., & Enders, C. (2015). A Comparison of imputation strategies for ordinal missing data on Likert scale variables. Multivariate Behavioral Research,50, 484–503. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2025,15, 185 18 of 18 Yee, A. M. M. (2018). The impact of participation in ecotourism on tourists’ behavior on the island of Kauai, Hawaii [Doctoral dissertation, California State University]. Available online: https://search.proquest.com (accessed on 28 April 2025). Yu, C. P., Chancellor, H. C., & Cole, S. T. (2011). Measuring residents’ attitudes toward sustainable tourism: A reexamination of the sustainable tourism attitude scale. Journal of Travel Research,50(1), 57–63. [CrossRef] 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.