Table 5 Structural model results.

From: Relationship between childhood socio-economic status and wellness tourism intention: a combined PLS-SEM and NCA methods

 

Relationship

Beta

SD

t-value

CI lower

CI upper

Remarks

Study 1

H1: CSES → WTI

0.06

0.03

1.85

0.00

0.13

Not Supported

H2: CSES → LHS

0.32

0.04

7.87***

0.23

0.39

Supported

H3: CSES → PV

0.13

0.04

2.97**

0.05

0.22

Supported

LHS → WTI

0.17

0.04

4.38***

0.09

0.24

–

PV → WTI

0.64

0.04

14.57***

0.55

0.72

–

LHS → PV

0.38

0.06

6.37***

0.26

0.50

–

H4: CSES → LHS → WTI

0.05

0.01

3.55***

0.03

0.08

Supported

H5: CSES → PV → WTI

0.09

0.03

2.90**

0.03

0.15

Supported

H6: CSES → LHS → PV → WTI

0.08

0.02

5.13***

0.05

0.11

Supported

Study 2

H1: CSES → WTI

0.04

0.04

1.35

−0.02

0.11

Not Supported

H2: CSES → LHS

0.44

0.04

10.78***

0.36

0.51

Supported

H3: CSES → PV

0.11

0.04

2.51*

0.02

0.18

Supported

LHS → WTI

0.20

0.07

2.84**

0.06

0.34

–

PV → WTI

0.57

0.07

8.40***

0.43

0.70

–

LHS → PV

0.61

0.05

11.56***

0.51

0.71

–

H4: CSES → LHS → WTI

0.09

0.03

2.79**

0.20

0.34

Supported

H5: CSES → PV → WTI

0.06

0.03

2.32*

0.01

0.11

Supported

H6: CSES → LHS → PV → WTI

0.15

0.03

5.45***

0.10

0.21

Supported

  1. *, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001; CSES childhood socioeconomic status, LHS life history strategy, PV perceived value, WTI wellness tourism intention.
Back to article page