Affinity and Animosity in Solidarity with Ukraine and Hospitality Outcomes–Model Questionnaire

1. Abstract

The Affinity and Animosity in Solidarity with Ukraine and Hospitality Outcomes—Model Questionnaire (AASUHO-M; Josiassen et al., 2023) is a multidimensional psychometric instrument formulated to evaluate consumer, traveler, and citizen behavioral tendencies in the context of geopolitical conflicts, focusing directly on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and its ramifications for the international tourism and hospitality industries. Grounded in the socio-psychological paradigms of intergroup relations, social identity theory, and place-based affect, the AASUHO-M examines whether individual expressions of solidarity, charitable engagement, and consumer boycotts are predominantly driven by positive emotional attachment (affinity) toward an invaded nation or punitive antipathy (animosity) toward an aggressor nation.

The scale encompasses 29 items distributed across five primary constructs: Place Solidarity (operationalized via an adapted 8-item inventory capturing mutual obligation, non-self-inflicted hardship, and public commitment), Country Affinity (comprising multidimensional facets of sympathy, admiration, and attachment), Country Animosity (bifurcated into contending anger and accommodating fear/worry), Philantourism (assessing intent to provide economic support via unutilized bookings), and Rejection of Russian-Accepting Accommodations (evaluating active avoidance and consumer boycotts of hospitality establishments catering to Russian tourists). Evaluated across rigorous structural equation modeling (SEM) protocols with adult consumer cohorts in the United States, the scale demonstrates robust psychometric properties. Convergent validity is established with Average Variance Extracted (AVE) estimates exceeding the recommended 0.50 threshold across all latent factors (≥ 0.52), while discriminant validity is substantiated via the conservative Heterotrait-Monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations, yielding maximum inter-construct ratios of 0.74 (well below the stringent 0.85 threshold). Internal consistency is verified through Composite Reliability (CR) metrics consistently exceeding 0.69 to 0.90 across subdimensions. The AASUHO-M provides empirical scholars, consumer psychologists, service management researchers, and international marketing strategists with a validated, robust tool for deciphering the affective, moral, and ideological drivers of prosocial and punitive consumer behavior during global humanitarian crises.

2. Keywords

Place Solidarity, Country Affinity, Country Animosity, Philantourism, Boycott Behavior, Hospitality Management, Prosocial Consumer Behavior, Geopolitical Crises, Structural Equation Modeling, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The Affinity and Animosity in Solidarity with Ukraine and Hospitality Outcomes—Model Questionnaire was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by a collaborative international team of researchers specializing in consumer behavior, tourism management, and marketing psychology:

• Alexander Josiassen, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing and Tourism, Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark. Email: [email protected].
• Florian Kock, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark. Email: [email protected].
• A. George Assaf, Ph.D. — Professor of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Isenberg School of Management, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, United States. Email: [email protected].
• Adiyukh Berbekova, Ph.D. (Corresponding Author) — Assistant Professor of Travel Industry Management, School of Travel Industry Management, Shidler College of Business, University of Hawai‘i at M&amacron;noa, Honolulu, Hawai‘i, United States. ORCID: 0000-0002-5835-6005. Email: [email protected]. Address: 2560 Campus Road, Honolulu, HI 96822, United States.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the AASUHO-M is to delineate, measure, and dissect the socio-psychological underpinnings of international place solidarity and its downstream manifestations in hospitality, tourism, and discretionary consumer behavior during wartime crises. The geopolitical landscape was fundamentally altered on February 24, 2022, when the Russian Federation initiated a full-scale military invasion of Ukraine. This military action elicited unprecedented global public reactions, characterized by widespread condemnation, grassroots humanitarian mobilization, governmental sanctions, and private enterprise divestment. In tandem with these socio-political dynamics, consumers worldwide engaged in direct, decentralized expressions of support for Ukraine and retaliatory avoidance behaviors against Russian entities.

Despite the salience of these consumer responses, traditional international business and consumer behavior frameworks historically struggled to disentangle the distinct psychological mechanisms governing simultaneous support for an in-need nation and punishment of an aggressor nation. Standard international marketing literature has traditionally evaluated country animosity—defined as remnant antipathy toward a foreign country based on prior or ongoing military, political, or economic actions—as an explanatory variable for consumer boycotts against that specific nation’s goods and services. Conversely, the concept of country affinity has evaluated positive affect, sympathy, and cultural admiration toward a specific geographic locale, predicting brand preference and tourist visitation. However, geopolitical crises rarely trigger these emotional vectors in isolation; instead, they evoke a dynamic nexus of empathy, moral outrage, shared identity, and ethical accountability.

The AASUHO-M was formulated to resolve three overarching research imperatives:

1. Deconstructing the Dual Drivers of Place Solidarity: The instrument empirically tests whether solidarity with an affected nation (e.g., Ukraine) is driven primarily by affectionate, empathetic attachments toward the victimized population (affinity) or by moral indignation, anger, and punitive motives directed toward the hostile aggressor (animosity toward Russia).
2. Operationalizing Place Solidarity in Crises: The scale adapts generalized sociological solidarity metrics into an acute place-solidarity framework that captures perceptions of moral blamelessness (non-self-inflicted hardship), collective civic responsibility, and individual willingness to mitigate human suffering through personal commitment and financial resources.
3. Bridging Affective Dispositions to Actionable Market Outcomes: The instrument connects abstract geopolitical sentiments to concrete, emergent consumer behaviors within the global service ecosystem. Specifically, it captures the phenomenon of philantourism—such as booking peer-to-peer accommodations (e.g., Airbnb) in active combat zones purely to inject liquidity directly into the hands of impacted citizens without any intention of occupying the premises—and punitive avoidance, manifested as the conscious refusal to patronize commercial hotels and resorts that continue to host tourists from the aggressor state.

By establishing a psychometrically sound, standardized inventory, the authors afford researchers and industry leaders a powerful analytical vehicle to quantify how distant socio-political crises shape ethical consumer choices, brand boycotts, destination choices, and solidarity-driven consumption.

5. Psychological Construct

The AASUHO-M measures a structural framework of interconnected psychological constructs, capturing emotional dispositions, normative evaluations, moral commitments, and targeted consumer behaviors. Each dimension captures distinct psychological characteristics:

5.1. Place Solidarity

Grounding itself in Emile Durkheim’s classical sociometry and subsequent adaptations in environmental and community psychology, Place Solidarity represents an individual’s psychological alignment, mutual feeling of responsibility, and ethical identification with a specific geographic populace experiencing existential adversity. Rather than functioning as detached humanitarian concern, place solidarity is characterized by active shared suffering, perceived fairness, and a felt imperative to intervene. It captures the normative belief that the afflicted community is confronting hardships that are strictly non-self-inflicted, thereby triggering strong altruistic motivations to allocate personal financial capital, voice moral advocacy, and assume shared responsibility for mitigating humanitarian crises.

5.2. Country Affinity

Drawing on the multidimensional conceptualization developed by Josiassen, Kock, and Nærfelt (2022), Country Affinity is operationalized not as a monolithic sentiment of “liking,” but as a hierarchical, tripartite affective structure comprising:

• Sympathy: Warmth, benevolence, friendliness, and subjective kindness directed toward the target nation and its people. In times of armed invasion, sympathy reflects compassionate grief and an innate drive to comfort and alleviate suffering.
• Admiration: Evaluative respect, captivation, fascination, and awe. Within the context of the Ukraine war, this construct measures public reverential sentiment toward the resilience, civic courage, and defense mounted by Ukrainian citizens and leadership.
• Attachment: Perceived psychological proximity, belonging, emotional connectivity, and shared values. It captures the psychological integration of the external country into one’s extended social self-concept.

5.3. Country Animosity

Complementing positive affinity, Country Animosity evaluates the hostile emotional and evaluative reactions harbored by consumers against an aggressor nation. Rather than viewing animosity as an undifferentiated negative attitude, the instrument decomposes animosity into two primary emotional clusters:

• Contending Animosity: Active, high-arousal emotional states comprising anger, irritation, wrath, and feeling upset. This component reflects moral outrage and confrontational motivation directed toward the perpetrators of armed aggression.
• Accommodating Animosity: Lower-arousal, anxiety-tinged affective states consisting of fear, apprehension, acute concern, and existential worry. This dimension assesses the psychological distress and global instability perceived by individuals witnessing unprovoked cross-border military incursions.

5.4. Philantourism

Philantourism represents an emerging hybrid of philanthropic donation and tourism-related transactional consumption. Distinct from traditional humanitarian aid (e.g., donating to the Red Cross), philantourism leverages tourism infrastructure—most notably short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb—to transfer capital directly, immediately, and transparently to local micro-entrepreneurs and distressed residents. In the AASUHO-M, this construct operationalizes the specific behavioral commitment to purchase hospitality inventory within an active crisis zone while explicitly intending to forego utilization, converting consumer spending into micro-level emergency cash relief.

5.5. Rejection of Russian-Accepting Accommodations

This construct captures secondary consumer boycott intentions and symbolic boundary enforcement. Grounded in social identity and social signaling paradigms, it evaluates a traveler’s deliberate decision to boycott, avoid, or express revulsion toward accommodation establishments that accommodate, welcome, or permit tourists from the aggressor nation. This behavior transcends direct nation-state boycotts, extending punitive moral accountability along the entire commercial supply chain to third-party hospitality providers, reflecting zero-tolerance consumer morality.

6. Theoretical Framework

The AASUHO-M integrates several complementary theoretical frameworks from social psychology, political science, and behavioral economics:

6.1. Social Identity Theory and Intergroup Emotions Theory

The scale relies fundamentally on Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) and Intergroup Emotions Theory (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). Social identity theory posits that individuals categorize themselves and others into in-groups and out-groups, deriving self-esteem, moral validation, and cognitive order from these distinctions. In international conflicts, geographic boundaries often expand into ideological and normative frontiers: global observers categorize an attacked sovereign nation as an extended democratic in-group while relegating the aggressor state to a hostile out-group.

Intergroup Emotions Theory explains how individuals experience emotional reactions—such as anger, sympathy, fear, and pride—on behalf of social groups, even when they have no direct personal connection to the events. When an individual identifies with an afflicted nation, unprovoked aggression against that nation elicits group-level emotions: contending animosity toward the perpetrator and affectionate solidarity toward the victim. These group-level emotional states translate directly into behavioral tendencies, motivating collective action, defensive economic retaliation, and altruistic support.

6.2. The Dual-Process Architecture of Affinity and Animosity

Historically, consumer behavior literature treated affinity and animosity as polar opposites along a single continuum of country affect. However, contemporary socio-cognitive frameworks (Josiassen et al., 2022, 2023) conceptualize affinity and animosity as orthogonal, independent psychological dimensions governed by distinct neural and motivational systems. An individual can simultaneously experience high animosity toward an aggressor (activating threat-avoidance and punitive retaliation systems) and high affinity toward an allied or victimized entity (activating approach-oriented, affiliative caregiving systems).

The theoretical model underpinning the AASUHO-M asserts that while both affinity and animosity exert independent influences, place solidarity serves as a critical cognitive and normative mediator. As depicted in the theoretical model, positive feelings of sympathy, admiration, and attachment toward Ukraine directly foster place solidarity. Concurrently, moral outrage and anger (contending animosity) toward Russia enhance place solidarity with Ukraine, as citizens translate their moral condemnation of the aggressor into increased moral responsibility toward the victim. In turn, place solidarity functions as the proximate psychological engine activating downstream behaviors: prosocial philantourism on the approach axis, and accommodation boycotts on the avoidance axis.

6.3. Moral Responsibility and the Just World Hypothesis

The operationalization of Place Solidarity is also informed by Lerner’s Just World Hypothesis and attribution theory (Weiner, 1985). Prosocial interventions and feelings of solidarity are conditioned heavily upon attributions of responsibility and causality. When suffering is perceived as self-inflicted, observers frequently disengage or experience moral ambivalence. Conversely, when an entity’s hardship is definitively perceived as external, unprovoked, and non-self-inflicted, observers experience cognitive dissonance and moral outrage, activating a compelling perceived obligation to restore moral balance. This dynamic is captured explicitly within the scale item: “[Place] is having a hard time, which was not self-inflicted; hence, we should help.”

7. Validity

The AASUHO-M underwent rigorous psychometric validation adhering to standardized structural equation modeling (SEM) best practices (Kline, 2011; Hair et al., 2017). The scale was tested on adult consumer cohorts sampled via Amazon Mechanical Turk across the United States during the active phase of the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, ensuring high contextual relevance and ecological validity.

7.1. Convergent Validity

Convergent validity demonstrates that items measuring a specific theoretical construct share a high proportion of variance in common. To confirm convergent validity, the authors evaluated the standardized factor loadings and calculated the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for all latent variables:

• Standardized item loadings across all underlying constructs loaded significantly (α < .001) onto their respective parent factors.
• The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for every latent construct equaled or exceeded the conventional 0.50 benchmark established by Fornell and Larcker (1981). Specifically, all observed AVE values were ≥ 0.52, confirming that more than half of the indicator variance is explained by the underlying latent construct rather than measurement error.

7.2. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity confirms that each latent construct represents a distinct psychological phenomenon that is empirically differentiated from all other constructs in the model. The authors utilized two complementary methods:

1. Fornell-Larcker Criterion: The square root of the AVE for each latent factor was compared against the bivariate correlations between that factor and all other latent constructs, confirming that every construct shared more variance with its own indicators than with other variables.
2. Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT): Recognizing the superior sensitivity of the HTMT metric over traditional criteria (Henseler et al., 2015), the authors assessed inter-construct HTMT ratios. The highest observed correlation ratio across all variable pairings was 0.74. This value is comfortably below both the conservative 0.85 threshold and the liberal 0.90 ceiling (Kline, 2011), confirming empirical discriminant validity between closely related emotional dimensions (such as sympathy, admiration, and place solidarity).

7.3. Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological and predictive validity were substantiated by testing the structural pathways linking Country Affinity (Ukraine) and Country Animosity (Russia) to Place Solidarity, and subsequently evaluating the predictive capacity of Place Solidarity on Philantourism and Rejection of Russian-Accepting Accommodations. The structural equation model confirmed statistically significant, theoretically consistent pathways:

• Country Affinity positively and significantly predicted Place Solidarity (β > 0, p < .001).
• Contending Animosity exerted a direct, positive influence on Place Solidarity, supporting the premise that outrage toward an aggressor amplifies protective solidarity with the victim.
• Place Solidarity significantly predicted downstream behavioral outcomes, demonstrating substantial explained variance ($R^2$) in philantourism intentions and hotel rejection decisions.

8. Reliability

The AASUHO-M exhibits strong internal consistency across its constituent subscales and overarching dimensions. Reliability analyses were performed on the measurement model utilizing both classical internal consistency coefficients and modern latent-variable reliability metrics.

8.1. Composite Reliability (CR)

Because traditional Cronbach’s alpha often assumes tau-equivalence (equal factor loadings across all items) and can underestimate or overestimate true score variance, the researchers evaluated Composite Reliability (CR), which accounts for the actual factor loadings of individual indicators. Across all validated constructs within the AASUHO-M, Composite Reliability values exceeded the minimum threshold of 0.69 (with primary factors typically ranging between 0.82 and 0.94). These values confirm that the indicators across Place Solidarity, Country Affinity dimensions, Country Animosity dimensions, Philantourism, and Accommodation Boycotts possess strong internal reliability.

8.2. Indicator Reliability

Indicator reliability was evaluated by inspecting individual standardized factor loadings and squared multiple correlations ($R^2$). Items exhibited robust item-to-construct communalities, indicating minimal residual error and demonstrating that the targeted items reliably capture their intended conceptual domains.

9. Factor Analysis

The AASUHO-M was evaluated using a two-stage structural equation modeling strategy, encompassing a comprehensive measurement model validation followed by structural path analysis.

9.1. Measurement Model Specification

A confirmatory measurement model was estimated using maximum likelihood techniques. The specification structured Place Solidarity as an 8-item primary construct; Country Affinity as a second-order construct informed by three first-order dimensions (Sympathy: 4 items; Admiration: 4 items; Attachment: 4 items); Country Animosity as a second-order construct informed by two first-order dimensions (Contending: 4 items; Accommodating: 4 items); and single- or multi-item behavioral indicators for Philantourism and Rejection of Russian-Accepting Hotels.

9.2. Goodness-of-Fit Indices

The confirmatory measurement model demonstrated satisfactory fit with the empirical data, fulfilling conventional psychometric benchmarks:

• Chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio ($\chi^2/df$): ≤ 3.0, indicative of good parsimonious fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): > .92, exceeding the conventional .90 threshold for acceptable fit.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): > .90, verifying incremental fit relative to the null baseline model.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): ≤ .065 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded within acceptable limits), confirming low approximation error.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): ≤ .06, confirming minimal discrepancy between observed and implied correlation matrices.

9.3. Structural Model Findings

Structural path coefficients demonstrated that Place Solidarity operates as a key psychological bridge between geopolitical country sentiments and downstream hospitality outcomes. The indirect effects of affinity and contending animosity on philantourism and hotel rejection through place solidarity were statistically significant, providing empirical support for the mediating architecture of the model.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Psychometric Questionnaire / Structural Survey Inventory.
• Format: Self-report Likert inventory administered digitally or via pencil-and-paper instruments.
• Item Count: 29 standardized items total across 5 core conceptual domains (8 Place Solidarity items, 12 Country Affinity items, 8 Country Animosity items, 1 Philantourism item, and 1 Hotel Rejection item).
• Target Population: Adult consumers, international travelers, and general public populations (18 years and older).
• Administration Time: Approximately 7 to 10 minutes.
• Response Scale: Multi-point rating scale (typically administered on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly Disagree” to 7 = “Strongly Agree”; emotional affinity/animosity descriptors rated from 1 = “Not at all” to 7 = “Extremely”).
• Scoring Protocol: Latent construct scores are calculated by averaging item responses within each subscale or estimating latent factor scores via structural equation modeling. Higher scores denote stronger levels of place solidarity, country affinity, country animosity, philantourism intention, and boycott motivation.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 2023.
• Copyright & Permissions: The Affinity and Animosity in Solidarity with Ukraine and Hospitality Outcomes—Model Questionnaire was published by Elsevier Ltd. in Tourism Management (Josiassen, Kock, Assaf, & Berbekova, 2023).
• Research & Teaching Use: The scale items and measurement model may be freely utilized without fee for non-commercial academic research, empirical inquiry, and higher-education teaching purposes, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is cited.
• Commercial Inquiries: Commercial applications, proprietary market research deployments, and enterprise diagnostic adaptations should contact the corresponding author, Dr. Adiyukh Berbekova ([email protected]), or the publisher regarding licensing permissions.

12. References

• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
• Josiassen, A., Kock, F., & Assaf, A. G. (2022). The power of solidarity: A new perspective on tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 94, 103387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2022.103387
• Josiassen, A., Kock, F., Assaf, A. G., & Berbekova, A. (2023). The role of affinity and animosity on solidarity with Ukraine and hospitality outcomes. Tourism Management, 96, 104712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2022.104712
• Josiassen, A., Kock, F., & Nærfelt, P. (2022). Conceptualizing and measuring consumer affinity: A multidimensional approach. International Marketing Review, 39(4), 856–878. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-01-2021-0027
• Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.
• Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602–616. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
• Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.92.4.548

13. Items of the Scale