04_How destination image and evaluative factors affect behavioral intentions
Tourism Management 28(2007)1115–1122
Research article
How destination image and evaluative factors
affect behavioral intentions?
Ching-Fu Chen ?,DungChun Tsai
Department of Transportation and Communication Management Science,National Cheng Kung University,1,Ta-Hsueh Rd.Tainan,701,Taiwan,ROC
Received 1November 2005;accepted 17July 2006
Abstract
Differing from the previous studies,this study proposed a more integrated tourist behavior model by including destination image and perceived value into the ‘‘quality–satisfaction–behavioral intentions’’paradigm.The structural relationships between all variables with respect to different stages of tourist behaviors were investigated in the study.The results show that destination image have both direct and indirect effects on behavioral intentions.In addition,the path ‘‘destination image -trip quality -perceived value -satisfaction -behavioral intentions’’appears evident in this study.r 2006Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords:Destination image;Trip quality;Perceived value;Satisfaction;Behavioral intentions
1.Introduction
Tourism has been seen as the driving force for regional development.Successful tourism can increase destination’s tourist receipts,income,employment and government revenues.How to attract the tourists to revisit and/or recommend the destination to others is crucial for the success of destination tourism development.
From the perspective of tourist consumption process (Ryan,2002;Williams &Buswell,2003),tourist behavior can be divided into three stages:pre-,during-and post-visitation.More speci?cally,tourist behavior is an aggre-gate term,which includes pre-visit’s decision-making,on-site experience,experience evaluations and post-visit’s behavioral intentions and behaviors.It has been generally accepted in the literature that destination image has in?uence on tourist behaviors (Bigne,Sanchez,&Sanchez,2001;Fakeye &Crompton,1991;Lee,Lee,&Lee,2005).The tourist behaviors include the choice of a destination to visit and subsequent evaluations and future behavioral
intention.The subsequent evaluations include the travel experience or perceived trip quality during the stay,perceived value and overall satisfaction while the future behavioral intentions include the intention to revisit and the willingness to recommend.There has been a great body of studies focusing on the interrelationship between quality,satisfaction and behavioral intentions (Backman &Veldkamp,1995;Baker &Crompton,2000;Cronin,Brady,&Hult,2000).However,in recent years perceived value has been emphasized as the object of attention by researchers in tourism (Kashyap &Bojanic,2000;Murphy,Pritchard,&Smith,2000;Oh,1999,2000;Petrick,2004;Petrick &Backman,2002a,b ;Petrick,Backman,&Bixler,1999;Petrick,Morais,&Norman,2001;Tam,2000).Some studies even argued that the measurement of satisfaction must be in conjunction with the measure of perceived value (Oh,2000;Woodruff,1997)and perceived value plays the moderating role between service quality and satisfaction (Caruana,Money,&Berthon,2000).Furthermore,per-ceived value involves the bene?ts received for the price paid (Zeithaml,1988)and is a distinctive concept from quality and satisfaction.Empirical research also reveal that the positive impact of perceived value on both future behavioral intentions and behaviors.Hence,perceived value,quality and satisfaction all have been shown to be
https://www.wendangku.net/doc/f611384768.html,/locate/tourman
0261-5177/$-see front matter r 2006Published by Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2006.07.007
?Corresponding author.Tel.:+88662757575x53230;
fax:+88662753882.
E-mail addresses:cfchen99@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/f611384768.html,.tw (C.-F.Chen),tsai46@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/f611384768.html,.tw (D.Tsai).
good predictors of future behavioral intentions(Baker& Crompton,2000;Bojanic,1996;Cronin et al.,2000; Petrick,2004;Tam,2000).
By understanding the relationships between future behavioral intentions and its determinants,destination tourism managers would better know how to build up an attractive image and improve their marketing efforts to maximize their use of resources.Hence,the purpose of the study is twofold.The?rst is to construct a more integrated model of tourist consumption process by including destination image and perceived value into the‘‘quality–satisfaction–behavioral intention’’paradigm.The second is to examine the relationships between destination image and evaluative factors(i.e.trip quality,perceived value and satisfaction)in their prediction of future behavioral intentions.
2.Conceptual background and hypotheses
Destination image is de?ned as an individual’s mental representation of knowledge(beliefs),feelings and overall perception of a particular destination(Crompton,1979; Fakeye&Crompton,1991).Destination image plays two important roles in behaviors:(1)to in?uence the destina-tion choice decision-making process and(2)to condition the after-decision-making behaviors including participa-tion(on-site experience),evaluation(satisfaction)and future behavioral intentions(intention to revisit and willingness to recommend)(Ashworth&Goodall,1988; Bigne et al.,2001;Cooper,Fletcher,Gilbert,&Wanhill, 1993;Lee et al.,2005;Mansfeld,1992).On-site experience can be mainly represented as the perceived trip quality based upon the comparison between expectation and actual performance.However,the in?uence of destination image on after-decision-making behaviors has been ne-glected in previous studies except for Bigne et al.(2001) and Lee et al.(2005).Following the marketing perspective, Lee et al.(2005)argued that individuals having a favorable destination image would perceive their on-site experiences (i.e.trip quality)positively,which in turn would lead to greater satisfaction levels and behavioral intentions.
The?rst four hypotheses,therefore,would be:
H1.The more favorable the destination image,the higher the perceived trip quality.
H2.The more favorable the destination image,the higher the overall satisfaction.
H3.The more favorable the destination image,the higher the perceived value.
H4.The more favorable the destination image,the more positive the behavioral intention.
As aforementioned,service quality has been recognized as the antecedent of satisfaction and behavioral intentions in a service setting.In addition,the research by Bigne et al. (2001)and Lee et al.(2005)also ascertained that higher trip quality could lead to both higher satisfaction and more positive behavioral intentions in general.
The?fth and sixth hypotheses,therefore,would be:
H5.The higher the trip quality,the higher the overall satisfaction.
H6.The higher the trip quality,the more positive the behavioral intention.
Quality,perceived value and satisfaction have been recognized as the antecedents of behavioral intentions (Kashyap&Bojanic,2000;Petrick,2004;Tam,2000;Tian-Cole,Crompton,&Willson,2002).However,the relation-ships between these antecedents are arguable.Based upon different assumptions,Petrick(2004)classi?ed the relation-ship quality,perceived value and satisfaction into three models,i.e.the satisfaction model(quality-value-satisfaction),the value model(quality-satisfaction-value)and the quality model(the relationship between satisfaction and value is uncertain).The empirical result shows in favor of the satisfaction model.In other words, perceived value plays a moderating role between quality and satisfaction.The evidence is inherent to Caruana et al. (2000)and Hellier,Geursen,Carr,and Rickard(2003).In addition,perceived value may be a better predicator of repurchase intentions than either satisfaction or quality (Cronin et al.,2000;Oh,2000).
The last four hypotheses,therefore,would be:
H7.The higher the trip quality,the higher the perceived value.
H8.The higher the perceived value,the higher the overall satisfaction.
H9.The higher the perceived value,the more positive the behavioral intention.
H10.The higher the overall satisfaction,the more positive the behavioral intention.
The conceptual model of the study is shown as Fig.1. Each of the model components is de?ned as follows: Behavioral intention:the visitor’s judgment about the likeliness to revisit the same destination or the willingness to recommend the destination to others.
Overall satisfaction:the extent of overall pleasure or contentment felt by the visitor,resulting from the ability of the trip experience to ful?ll the visitor’s desires,expecta-tions and needs in relation to the trip.
Perceived value:the visitor’s overall appraisal of the net worth of the trip,based on the visitor’s assessment of what is received(bene?ts),and what is given(costs or sacri?ce). Trip quality:the visitor’s assessment of the standard of the service delivery process in association with the trip experience.
Destination image:the visitor’s subjective perception of the destination reality.
C.-F.Chen,
D.Tsai/Tourism Management28(2007)1115–1122 1116
3.Methodology
3.1.Questionnaire design
The questionnaire was designed as the survey instrument including all constructs of the proposed model to investigate the hypotheses of interest.The questions in the questionnaire are based on a review of the literature and speci?c destination characteristics.The survey instru-ment was revised and?nalized based on feedback from?ve tourism experts and a pilot sample of25postgraduate students studying a tourism management program in Taiwan.Hence,the content validity of the survey instru-ment was deemed as adequate.1The questionnaire consists of?ve parts.Part1of the questionnaire deals with the measurement of destination image with20attributes extracted from previous studies(Baloglu&McCleary, 1999;Beerli&Martin,2004;Etchner&Ritchie,1993; Walmsley&Young,1998).Part2deals with the measure-ment of trip quality with20items covering the?ve aspects of attractions,accessibility,amenity,activities,available packages,and ancillary services(Buhalis,2000).Part3 deals with the measurement of perceived value with three items including time value,money value and effort value (Bolton&Drew,1991).Part4deals with the measurement of single-item overall satisfaction and two-item behavioral intentions(i.e.likeliness to revisit and willingness to recommend)following Bigne et al.(2001),Sirakaya, Petrick,and Choi(2004)and Tian-Cole et al.(2002). Respondents are asked to indicate their agreement level for each item,for the?rst four parts on a?ve-point Likert-type scale,from‘strongly disagree(?1)’to‘strongly agree (?5)’.Part5presents respondents’demographic informa-tion with seven items,such as gender,age,education level, occupation,monthly income,travel party,and past visitation experience via a categorical scale.3.2.Sample design and data collection
The empirical study was carried out in Kengtin region, an important and famous coastal destination in southern Taiwan,during December2004.Individuals over the age of 18years and who were visiting the attractions within the Kengtin region were considered to be the target popula-tion.Applying the convenient sampling technique,a total number of500questionnaires were delivered and393 usable samples were obtained,resulting in a response rate of78.6%.
The respondent pro?le is summarized as Table1.The great majority of the respondents were aged below34but over15(72.2%)with a slight majority of female visitors (57.0%).In all,75.4%had a university degree or higher quali?cation.Student(20.1%),service worker(20.6%)and clerk worker(20.6%)were the main divisions of occupa-tion for respondents.The great majority of the respondents had a monthly income less than NT$40,000,or approxi-mately$12002(72.2%),98.3%were accompanying family or friends(98.3%),and80.7%were revisiting Kengtin. 3.3.Data analysis
The data analysis was conducted in two stages.First, exploratory factor analyses using principal component method with varimax rotation were conducted on destina-tion image and trip quality to examine their dimensional-ities and psychometric properties.On that basis,the relationships of destination image,evaluative factors(i.e. trip quality,perceived value and satisfaction),and beha-vioral intentions were empirically tested using structural equation modeling(SEM)technique in the second stage.
4.Empirical results
In this study a multi-attribute approach was employed to measure destination image and trip quality.As mentioned above,destination image and trip quality were both measured using a20-item scale.Employing the principal components factor analysis,four factors with an eigenvalue greater than one explained62.4%of the variance of destination image scale.Six items with factor loading less than0.5were removed from the scale.The varimax-rotated factor pattern implies that the?rst factor concerns ‘‘destination brand’’(5items,a?0:819).The second factor relates to‘‘entertainment’’(4items,a?0:763). The third factor consists of characteristics of the‘‘nature and culture’’(3items,a?0:659).The fourth factor relates to‘‘sun and sand’’(2items,a?0:607).The arithmetic means of the four multi-item factors were used to build the construct destination image for subsequent analysis.The result of the factor analysis for destination image is shown in Table2.
Fig.1.The conceptual model of the study.
1The results of scale reliability for the pilot test are destination image
(Cronbach a?0:89),trip quality(Cronbach a?0:83),perceived value
(Cronbach a?0:91)and behavioral intention(Cronbach a?0:87).21$A33NT$at the time of study.
C.-F.Chen,
D.Tsai/Tourism Management28(2007)1115–11221117
Similarly,four factors with an eigenvalue greater than one explained 60.5%of the variance of trip quality scale using the principal components factor analysis.Two items with loading factors less than 0.5were removed from the scale.The varimax-rotated factor pattern implies that the ?rst factor relates to ‘‘hospitality’’(7items,a ?0:848).The second factor relates to ‘‘attractions’’(4items,a ?0:748).The third factor concerns ‘‘transport’’(3items,a ?0:769).The fourth consists of the attributes of ‘‘amenity’’(4items,a ?0:763).The arithmetic means of the four multi-item factors were used to build the construct trip quality for subsequent analysis.The result of the factor analysis for trip quality is shown in Table 3.
Reliability for each of the factors was obtained using the calculation of a Cronbach a coef?cient.The Cronbach a coef?cients ranged from 0.85to 0.61(see Tables 2and 3).
Six of the eight factors were above the cut-off criterion of 0.7recommended by Nunnally (1978)while two were just below this level,namely,‘‘nature and culture’’(0.66)and ‘‘sun and sand’’(0.61).However,Peterson (1994)suggested that an a value of 0.6is the ‘criterion-in-use’.Therefore,it suggests that all factors were well above the ‘criterion-in-use’and thus acceptably reliable.
Con?rmatory factor analysis (CFA)was then conducted using LISREL VIII (Joreskog &Sorbom,1993)with covariance matrix to test the convergent validity of the constructs used in subsequent analysis.The ?t indices suggested by Joreskog and Sorbom (1993)and Hair,Anderson,Tatham,and Black (1998)were used to assess the model adequacy.Convergent validity of CFA results should be supported by item reliability,construct reliability and average variance extracted (Hair et al.,1998).As shown in Table 4,t -values for all the standardized factor loadings of the items were found to be signi?cant (p o 0:01).In addition,construct reliability estimates ranging from 0.75to 0.92exceeded the critical value of 0.7recommended by Hair et al.(1998),indicating it was satisfactory.The average variances extracted for all the constructs fell between 0.60and 0.93,and were greater than the value of 0.5suggested by Hair et al.(1998).Composite scores for each construct were obtained from the mean scores across items representing that construct.
The proposed conceptual model in Fig.1was tested by using the ?ve constructs:namely destination image,trip quality,perceived value,satisfaction and behavioral inten-tions.Factors of ‘‘destination brand’’,‘‘entertainment’’,‘‘nature and culture’’and ‘‘sun and sand’’were served as the measurement variables of destination image.Also,factors of ‘‘hospitality’’,‘‘attractions’’,‘‘transport’’and ‘‘amenity’’are used as the measurement variables of trip quality.In addition,perceived value,satisfaction and behavioral inten-tions were measured by three,one and two items as mentioned previously,respectively.Employing the covariance matrix among 14measurement items as input,the SEM analysis was conducted to examine the relationships between each pair of constructs as hypothesized.The results of SEM analysis were depicted in Fig.2.The ?t indices of the model are summarized in Table 5.The overall model indicates that w 2is 207.7with 69degrees of freedom (d.f.)(p o 0.0001).Technically,the p -value should be greater than 0.05,i.e.,statistically insigni?cant.However,in practice the w 2-value is very sensitive to sample size and frequently results in the rejection of a well-?tting model.Hence,the ratio of w 2over d.f.has been recommended as a better goodness of ?t than w 2(Hair et al.,1998).A common level of the w 2/d.f.ratio is below 5(though below 3is better).The w 2/d.f.ratio of the model is 3.01(i.e.,207.7/69),indicating an acceptable ?t.Furthermore,other indicators of goodness of ?t are GFI ?0.930,RMSEA ?0.0716,RMR ?0.0015,NFI ?0.972,NNFI ?0.975,CFI ?0.981,RFI ?0.963,and PNFI ?https://www.wendangku.net/doc/f611384768.html,paring these with the corresponding critical values shown in Table 4,it suggests that the hypothesized model ?ts the empirical data well.
Table 1
Respondent pro?le
Demographic characteristics Frequency Percentage (%)Gender Male 16943.0Female 22457.0Age 18–2414837.625–3416141.035–447619.345–54
5 1.255and over 30.9Education level Primary
6 1.2High school 9223.4University 26667.6Postgraduate 297.8Occupation Student 7920.1Housework 21 5.3Civil servant 5213.2Self-employed 379.4Service worker 8120.6Skilled worker 1
7 4.3Clerical worker 8120.6Other
25 6.5Monthly income (NT$)a p 2,000,00010827.420,001–40,00017644.840,001–60,0006817.160,000–80,00016 4.2X 80,00125 6.5Travel party Single 30.9Family 15840.1Friends 22958.2Tour group 30.9Past experience First-time visit 7619.3Repeated visit
417
80.7
a
33NT$A 1US$.
C.-F.Chen,
D.Tsai /Tourism Management 28(2007)1115–1122
1118
Within the overall model,the estimates of the structural coef?cients provide the basis for testing the proposed hypotheses.As shown in Fig.2,destination image has a signi?cantly positive effect on trip quality and behavioral intentions(g1?0:91,t-value?14.63,p o0:01,and g4?0:37,t-value?2.17,p o0:01,respectively)thus sup-porting H1and H4.Due to their insigni?cances on structural coef?cients,however,the hypotheses of destina-tion image has positive effect on perceived value(H2)and on satisfaction,(H3)is not supported.The trip quality,as hypothesized,has a signi?cantly positive effect on per-ceived value(b1?0:83,t-value?10.92,p o:01),thus supporting H5.Nonetheless,it does not have a signi?cant effect on both satisfaction and behavioral intentions,thus rejecting H6and H7,respectively.In addition,the perceived value has a signi?cantly positive effect on satisfaction (b4?0:75,t-value?9.51,p o0:01),supporting H8while it does not appear to have a signi?cant effect on behavioral
Table2
Factor analysis of destination image
Factor/item Factor loading Variance explained(%)Cumulative variance explained(%)Cronbach a IM1:Destination brand(3.60)20.1920.190.82 Offers personal safety0.783
A good quality of life0.780
Clean0.718
A good name and reputation0.647
Hospitable and friendly people0.521
IM2:Entertainment(3.51)17.7837.970.76
Good night life0.760
A good shopping place0.756
Varied gastronomy0.744
Exotic0.574
IM3:Nature and culture(3.92)12.4950.460.66
Great variety of fauna and?ora0.852
Spectacular landscape0.658
Unusual ways of life and customs0.625
IM4:Sun and sand(4.19)11.9162.400.61
Good weather0.810
Good beaches0.773
Table3
Factor analysis of trip quality
Factor/item Factor loading Variance explained(%)Cumulative variance explained(%)Cronbach a TQ1:Hospitality(3.43)20.5720.570.85
Price of accommodation0.761
Prices of activities0.717
Food and beverage of accommodation0.707
Services of accommodation workers0.698
Prices of food&beverage0.671
Safety of activities0.526
TQ2:Attractions(3.82)13.5734.140.75 Cleanness of beaches0.830
Uniqueness of landscape0.791
Comfort of built environment0.602
Weather0.546
TQ3:Transport(3.57)13.0547.190.77 Accessibility0.767
Internal transport0.758
Parking facilities and space0.713
TQ4:Amenity(3.73)12.8660.050.76
Food and beverage provision0.688
General infrastructure0.676
Travel information0.622
Signs and indicators0.558
C.-F.Chen,
D.Tsai/Tourism Management28(2007)1115–11221119
intentions,not supporting H9.Finally,the satisfaction has a signi?cantly positive effect on behavioral intentions (b6?0:54,t-value?7.94,p o0:01),supporting H10.
To sum up,an evident path‘‘destination image-trip quality-perceived value-satisfaction-behavioral inten-tions’’appears in the estimated model.The results of the hypotheses testing are summarized in Table6.Note that trip quality does not directly,but does indirectly,in?uence satisfaction through perceived value as a moderating variable.This?nding con?rms the arguments of previous studies(Caruana et al.,2000;Oh,2000;Woodruff,1997). Table7reports the direct and indirect effects of all variables on visitor’s behavioral intentions.Both destina-tion image and satisfaction had direct effects on behavioral intentions while trip quality and perceived value had
indirect effects on behavioral intentions.Total effect of destination image on behavioral intentions,i.e.,sum of direct and indirect effect through destination image’s effect on trip quality,perceived and satisfaction,was found to be 0.68.In a similar way,the total effects of trip quality, perceived value and satisfaction on behavioral intentions
Table4
Convergent validity
Constructs Items Item reliability Construct reliability Average variance extracted Factor loadings Standard error Standardized factor loading t-value
Destination image IM1 1.000—0.46—0.750.62
IM20.9030.0700.4212.97**
IM30.7460.0600.3412.38**
IM40.7110.0650.3310.90**
Trip quality TQ1 1.00—0.42—0.800.60
TQ20.9600.0650.4014.77**
TQ30.9290.0820.3911.26**
TQ40.9150.0680.3813.51**
Perceived value PV1 1.00—0.49—0.840.76
PV2 1.1780.0780.5715.15**
PV3 1.1720.0780.5714.98**
Behavioral intention BI1 1.00—0.59—0.920.93
BI2 1.0680.0400.6326.68**
**p o0:01.
γ
4
**denotes p<0.01
Fig.2.The estimated structural model.Table5
Goodness of?t indices of model
Criteria Indicators
w2-test
w2p40:05207.7
w2/d.f.o5 3.01(207.7/69) Fit indices
GFI40.90.93
AGFI40.90.94
PGFI40.50.61
NFI40.90.97
NNFI40.90.97 Alternative indices
CFI40.950.98
RMSEA o0.050.02
RMR o0.050.02
Table6
Summary of hypothesis testing results
Hypothesis Testing result H1Destination image-Trip quality Supported
H2Destination image-Perceived value Not supported H3Destination image-Satisfaction Not supported H4Destination image-Behavioral intentions Supported
H5Trip quality-Perceived value Supported
H6Trip quality-Satisfaction Not supported H7Trip quality-Behavioral intentions Not supported H8Perceived value-Satisfaction Supported
H9Perceived value-Behavioral intentions Not supported H10Satisfaction-Behavioral intentions Supported
C.-F.Chen,
D.Tsai/Tourism Management28(2007)1115–1122 1120
were found to be0.34,0.41and0.54,respectively.It indicates that destination image and satisfaction are the two most important variables to in?uence visitor’s behavioral intentions.
5.Conclusions
This study investigated the tourist behaviors by con-structing a more comprehensive model considering desti-nation image,evaluative factors(i.e.trip quality,perceived value,satisfaction)and behavioral intentions.The struc-tural relationships between all variables in the study were tested using data obtained from a visitor questionnaire survey at Kengtin in southern Taiwan.As Lee et al.(2005) argued,although broad agreement among scholars regard-ing the in?uence of destination image on process,little empirical research has been done.In addition,the moderating role of perceived value between quality and satisfaction has been debatable but frequently neglected in previous research.This study differs from previous studies by taking account of destination image and perceived value in the tourist behavior model.
The structural relationship analysis indicates that destination image appears to have the most important effect on behavioral intentions(i.e.intention to revisit and willingness to recommend).Destination image in?uences behavioral intentions in two ways:directly and indirectly. This?nding is consistent with Bigne et al.(2001).In particular,the path of‘‘destination image-trip quality-perceived value-satisfaction-behavioral intentions’’ap-pears evident in this study.Destination image not only in?uences the decision-making process but also conditions after-decision-making behaviors of tourists.In other words,the in?uence of destination image is not limited to the stage of selecting the destination,but also affects the behavior of tourists in general(Bigne et al.,2001).Hence, endeavors to build or improve the image of a destination facilitate loyal visitors revisiting or recommending beha-viors,thus being critical to the success of destination tourism development.
Trip quality was found to have an indirect rather than a direct effect on overall satisfaction as moderated by perceived value.It implies that unless leading to an increase in perceived value,trip quality is not guaranteed to lead to customer’s overall satisfaction.Subsequently,the results in positive behavioral intentions would be also uncertain.Hence,perceived value does play an important role in affecting the level of satisfaction and future behavioral intentions of customers.An increase in quality would generally induce an increase in costs.If a product with high quality cannot make customers satis?ed,how-ever,the quality in practice is of little use and its induced cost is wasteful.By better understanding how tourists value their trip experiences,tourism managers could be able to device more effective marketing strategies and service delivery to meet tourists’actual needs.Once tourists perceive their trip experiences valuable,the higher satisfac-tion would occur and furthermore the bene?ts of positive behaviors could be brought out.The issues allowing better understanding of customer’s value perception and the role of perceived value in the relationship between quality and satisfaction should be addressed and warrant future study. Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Mr.Ting-Yao Wei for his assistance in data collection and the two referees for their comments.
References
Ashworth,G.,&Goodall, B.(1988).Tourist images:Marketing considerations.In B.Goodall,&G.Ashworth(Eds.),Marketing in the tourism industry.The promotion of destination regions (pp.213–238).London:Croom Helm.
Backman,S.J.,&Veldkamp,C.(1995).Examination of the relationship between service quality and user loyalty.Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,13(2),29–42.
Baker, D. A.,&Crompton,J.L.(2000).Quality,satisfaction and behavioral intentions.Annals of Tourism Research,27(3),785–804. Baloglu,S.,&McCleary,K.W.(1999).A model of destination image formation.Annals of Tourism Research,26(4),868–897.
Beerli,A.,&Martin,J.D.(2004).Factors in?uencing destination image.
Annals of Tourism Research,31(3),657–681.
Bigne,J.,Sanchez,M.,&Sanchez,J.(2001).Tourism image,evaluation variables and after purchase behavior:Inter-relationships.Tourism Management,22(6),607–616.
Bojanic, D. C.(1996).Consumer perceptions of price,value and satisfaction in the hotel industry:An exploratory study.Journal of Hospitality&Leisure Marketing,4(1),5–22.
Table7
Direct effect,indirect effect and total effect
Path Direct effect Indirect effect Total direct Image-Trip quality0.91—0.91
Trip quality-Perceived value0.83—0.83 Perceived value-Satisfaction0.75—0.75 Satisfaction-Behavioral intentions0.54—0.54 Image-Behavioral intentions0.370.310.68
Trip quality-Behavioral intentions—0.340.34 Perceived value-Behavioral intentions—0.410.41
C.-F.Chen,
D.Tsai/Tourism Management28(2007)1115–11221121
Bolton,R.N.,&Drew,J.H.(1991).A multistage model of customers’assessments of service quality and value.Journal of Consumer Research,17(March),375–384.
Buhalis,D.D.(2000).Marketing the competitive destination of the future.
Tourism Management,21(1),97–116.
Caruana,A.,Money,A.H.,&Berthon,P.R.(2000).Service quality and satisfaction:The moderating role of value.European Journal of Marketing,34(11/12),1338–1352.
Cooper,C.,Fletcher,J.,Gilbert,D.,&Wanhill,S.(1993).Tourism: Principles and https://www.wendangku.net/doc/f611384768.html,:Pitman Publishing.
Crompton,J.(1979).An assessment of the image of Mexico as a vacation destination and the in?uence of geographical location upon the image.
Journal of Travel Research,17(4),18–23.
Cronin,J.J.,Brady,M.K.,&Hult,G.T.M.(2000).Assessing the effects of quality,value and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments.Journal of Retailing,76(2), 193–218.
Etchner, C.M.,&Ritchie,J.R. B.(1993).The measurement of destination image:An empirical assessment.Journal of Travel Research,31(3),3–13.
Fakeye,P.,&Crompton,J.(1991).Image differences between prospective,?rst-time,and repeat visitors to the lower Rio Grande valley.Journal of Travel Research,30(2),10–16.
Hair,J.F.J.,Anderson,R.E.,Tatham,R.L.,&Black,W.C.(1998).
Multivariate data analysis with readings.Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hellier,P.K.,Geursen,G.M.,Carr,R.A.,&Rickard,J.A.(2003).
Customer repurchase intention:A general structural model.European Journal of Marketing,37(11/12),1762–1800.
Joreskog,K.G.,&Sorbom,D.(1993).LISREL VIII:User’s reference guide.Chicago:Scienti?c Software International.
Kashyap,R.,&Bojanic,D.(2000).A structural analysis of value,quality and price perception of business and leisure travellers.Journal of Travel Research,39(1),45–51.
Lee,C.,Lee,Y.,&Lee,B.(2005).Korea’s destination image formed by the2002world cup.Annals of Tourism Research,32(4),839–858. Mansfeld,Y.(1992).From motivation to actual travel.Annals of Tourism Research,19,399–419.
Murphy,P.,Pritchard,M.P.,&Smith,B.(2000).The destination product and its impact on traveler perceptions.Tourism Management,21(1), 43–52.
Nunnally,J.C.(1978).Psychometric theory.New York:McGraw-Hill.Oh,H.(1999).Service quality,customer satisfaction,and customer value:
A holistic perspective.Hospitality Management,18,67–82.
Oh,H.(2000).Diners’perceptions of quality,value and satisfaction.
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,41(3),58–66. Peterson,R.(1994).A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coef?cient alpha.
Journal of Consumer Research,21(2),381–391.
Petrick,J.F.(2004).The roles of quality,perceived value and satisfaction in predicting cruise passengers’behavioral intentions.Journal of Travel Research,42(4),397–407.
Petrick,J.F.,&Backman,S.J.(2002a).An examination of golf travelers’satisfaction,perceived value,loyalty and intentions to revisit.Tourism Analysis,6(3/4),223–237.
Petrick,J.F.,&Backman,S.J.(2002b).An examination of the construct of perceived value for the prediction of golf travelers’intentions to repurchase.Journal of Travel Research,41(1),38–45.
Petrick,J.F.,Backman,S.J.,&Bixler,R.(1999).An investigation of selected factors’impact on golfer satisfaction and perceived value.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration,17(1),40–59. Petrick,J.F.,Morais,D.D.,&Norman,W.C.(2001).An examination of the determinants of entertainment vacationers’intentions to revisit.
Journal of Travel Research,40(1),41–48.
Ryan,C.(2002).From motivation to assessment.In C.Ryan(Ed.),The tourist experience(2nd ed.,pp.58–77).London:Continuum. Sirakaya,E.,Petrick,J.,&Choi,H.S.(2004).The role of mood on tourism product evaluations.Annals of Tourism Research,31(3),517–539. Tam,J.L.M.(2000).The effects of service quality,perceived value and customer satisfaction on behavioral intentions.Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing,6(4),31–43.
Tian-Cole,S.,Crompton,J.L.,&Willson,V.L.(2002).An empirical investigation of the relationships between service quality,satisfaction and behavioral intentions among visitors to a wildlife refuge.Journal of Leisure Research,34(1),1–24.
Walmsley,D.J.,&Young,M.(1998).Evaluative images and tourism:The use of personal constructs to describe the structure of destination images.Journal of Travel Research,36(2),65–69.
Williams,C.,&Buswell,J.(2003).Service quality in leisure and tourism.
UK:CABI Publishing.
Woodruff,R.B.(1997).Customer value:The next source for competitive edge.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,25(2),139–153. Zeithaml,V.A.(1988).Consumer perceptions of price,quality and value:
A means-end model and synthesis of evidence.Journal of Marketing,
52(July),2–22.
C.-F.Chen,
D.Tsai/Tourism Management28(2007)1115–1122 1122